Jump to content

Derby down, Wycombe promoted


Recommended Posts

Guest Therealrealist

Derby and Wednesday need to stop cheating and trying to bend the rules...we both deserve everything we get

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Therealrealist said:

Derby and Wednesday need to stop cheating and trying to bend the rules...we both deserve everything we get

I'd agree with you if every team that had gained an advantage by cheating and bending the rules in previous seasons had been prosecuted and punished with the same tenacity, but they weren't. I've no desire to see my club become martyrs to make the EFL and fans from rival teams happy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Crewton Ram said:

I'd agree with you if every team that had gained an advantage by cheating and bending the rules in previous seasons had been prosecuted and punished with the same tenacity, but they weren't. I've no desire to see my club become martyrs to make the EFL and fans from rival teams happy. 

exactly ..qpr broke the rules big time so did a villa ,bournmouth and didnt wolves spend so much in 1 season that would have added upto 3years worth of losses etc. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, morganowl said:

exactly ..qpr broke the rules big time so did a villa ,bournmouth and didnt wolves spend so much in 1 season that would have added upto 3years worth of losses etc. 

Yep, you can add Leicester, Boro and Watford to that list too, and none of them received anything other than a financial penalty that was a fraction of what they gained through being promoted. Of course, the FFP rules and available punishments were different then, and the refusal of the PL to coordinate punishment with the EFL prevented things like points deductions and instant relegation being applied - QPR and Bournemouth even threatened to sue the EFL on the basis that FFP wasn't legal. So who could possibly be surprised that other clubs who'd been beaten to promotion by those clubs thought "sod it, we may as well try it ourselves"? 

 

I find it doubly ironic that Wycombe now, and Boro before them, have threatened to sue us for "losses" they've incurred because of our actions. If only we'd tried similar when QPR beat us at Wembley in a season where they ran up losses of 4x that allowed under FFP at the time. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EFL need to get a grip...   How are Derby supposed to start recruiting for next season and putting a budget together when they dont know what league they will be in...  I suspect if the EFL leave their decision so long that Derby will be relegated next season anyway because they wont be able to do any business...  Its similar for Wycombe although not so bad although if they do go up to the championship they will likely not be ready and will most likely be relegated.

 

Although I understand the FFP system I think giving teams points deductions and relegating them just compounds the financial issues, and all this when teams that have broken FFP but made it into the prem just get away with it, thats the incentive to break FFP.

 

Wages are the biggest problem in football, these should be capped at 80% of generated income.  If rich owners want to pump in money for transfer fees etc that is fine but wages should not exceed 80% of generated income, there should be more observations of this with month by month observers from the EFL working with teams (Obviously taking into account season ticket sales peaks and off season reduction in income so averaged over a year).  When a team is over 80% they should get a warning for 3 months, if they fail to address the issue then an embargo placed on them until the wages are reduced.   It could mean contracts for players include a large fee upfront in return for a reduced wage, again that is fine as long as the owner pays for it and the debt is not put onto the club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think Derby did do it deliberately.

It’s easy to spend money buying players, 

not so easy to balance things up by selling players (even though we sold hendrick, vydra and Ince for profit).

the issue is also the silly wages - £23k a week to keogh 27k a week to Tom ‘I’m driving’ Lawrence., and even we are already in the 💩he signs Rooney on megabucks. Why?

It’s just poor management rather than an attempt to cheat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Raminpeace said:

I don’t think Derby did do it deliberately.

It’s easy to spend money buying players, 

not so easy to balance things up by selling players (even though we sold hendrick, vydra and Ince for profit).

the issue is also the silly wages - £23k a week to keogh 27k a week to Tom ‘I’m driving’ Lawrence., and even we are already in the 💩he signs Rooney on megabucks. Why?

It’s just poor management rather than an attempt to cheat.

 

Its still cheating same as us. Incompetence is no excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Asio otus said:

Its still cheating same as us. Incompetence is no excuse.

Exactly, you would assume, or rather hope, that both Wednesday and Derby knew the rules like every other club in the league.  Therefore nobody can break those rules by accident It’ll be a combination of ignorance, arrogance and as you say, incompetence - either way, it’s still cheating and I’m ashamed to have any association with this club at the moment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Asio otus said:

Its still cheating same as us. Incompetence is no excuse.

I don't think it's quite as black and white as that. Brentford have a wage bill far in excess of their income, but rely on astute buying and there being buyers willing to buy their best players at prices that cover their overspending. Leeds admit they deliberately overspent in their promotion season by tens of millions on the basis that, if they didn't get promoted, someone would pay them megabucks for Kalvin Phillips before the end of the financial year. Technically, both set out to cheat by having a budget well in excess of their income, but with a fall-back plan to mitigate potential losses. Is selling your stadium, or using a different amortisation method that even two disciplinary panels can't reach the same opinion on, to achieve the same balancing act any different? 

 

Surely the only "honest" clubs are those who budget for recording no more than the allowable loss without having to rely on future uncertain asset sales to keep onside of the rules? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no apologist for Chansiri, and Derby and Wednesday broke the rules.  However it is clear to me that those rules and the running of the Championship is in such disarray that it is ungovernable in a fair and equitable way. We have a list above of six clubs (Leicester, QPR, Bournemouth, Villa, Wolves, Boro) who seemingly broke the rules. We have other clubs (Forest, Watford allegedly) who are bending the rules. Half the other clubs are in reciept of ludicrous amounts of money in so-called "parachute payments".   This cannot be fair.  It is no surprise then that other clubs try to compete to reach the promised land. The promised land where West Ham and Man City were virtually given new stadiums, Chelsea were taken over by a Russian oligarch, and the richest clubs complain about fixture congestion and then fly to China and the middle east to play exhibition games in countries with poor human rights records .

The whole system is rotten and Bury and macclesfield are extinct for the want of  one weeks wages of, for example Gareth Bale.

Just realised I have no answer.....it's so depressing.

  • Like 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EFL needs to grow some balls and bare its teeth, stop admitting relegated sides on huge prem pay offs and grow its own competition, end promotion, market its own product and have faith in its success,run a rival competition,

Ensure the likes of Wycombe, Blackpool and Fleetwood/Morecambe or Peterborough get promoted next season to their competition, accept the fallers and say, UP YOURS Premier league, were going it alone, enjoy!

Sky wont pay millions for liverpool v morecambe every week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Raminpeace said:

I don’t think Derby did do it deliberately.

It’s easy to spend money buying players, 

not so easy to balance things up by selling players (even though we sold hendrick, vydra and Ince for profit).

the issue is also the silly wages - £23k a week to keogh 27k a week to Tom ‘I’m driving’ Lawrence., and even we are already in the 💩he signs Rooney on megabucks. Why?

It’s just poor management rather than an attempt to cheat.

 


Haven’t read full thread so forgive me if already covered, but I thought what has mostly landed Derby in hot water - once the whole ground-selling thing was begrudgingly labelled a bit of a potential loophole exploit for various clubs, us included - was their ‘creative’ approach to player amortisation in massaging the budget balance even further?

 

Unless I’ve misunderstood, I thought the EFL had been warning Derby they’d got the whole amortisation thing dangerously and uniquely wrong for about the past 3-4 years, but nothing was  really done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Mr. Tom said:


Haven’t read full thread so forgive me if already covered, but I thought what has mostly landed Derby in hot water - once the whole ground-selling thing was begrudgingly labelled a bit of a potential loophole exploit for various clubs, us included - was their ‘creative’ approach to player amortisation in massaging the budget balance even further?

 

Unless I’ve misunderstood, I thought the EFL had been warning Derby they’d got the whole amortisation thing dangerously and uniquely wrong for about the past 3-4 years, but nothing was  really done.


you are right that it relates to amortisation but you’re wrong about the EFL - there were no warnings. Far from it. 

 

the EFL had approved the accounts for the relevant years. 
the method of assessing amortisation was widely reported in commentaries by Swiss ramble and others. It wasn’t a secret. The EFL raised no objection. 
then came the whole business of the ground sale and the valuation. Once again the EFL approved the accounts which amazed me tbh, 

Middlesbrough we’re not happy and raised it at a meeting of the clubs, and we’re defeated in a vote. 
then boro took legal action against the EFL and possibly Derby, I can’t remember.

the EFL then started to demand evidence regarding the ground valuation and there was a bit of a row because they went to a third party surveyor who put a low valuation on the ground. Still the amortisation issue was not raised.

after a pause  the EFL brought charges against Derby in relation to both the ground valuation and the amortisation method of accounting. By this time the club and EFL had seriously fallen out. The disciplinary committee found in favour of Derby on all counts  apart from a criticism that the change in the method of calculating amortisation was not clearly stated in the accounts. It was apparent that there had been a big fall out with the EFl over evidencing the ground valuation and that eventually Derby stopped co-operating with the EFL and ignored their questions preferring to trust the disciplinary committee than the EFL to decide matters. The justification by the disciplinary committee for approving the ground valuation was really thorough and the evidence of the league’s valuation surveyor was torn to shreds. The justification for the decision regarding amortisation seemed a bit charitable because of a lack of evidence as to how the valuations were calculated. The committee seemed to just take Derby and the accountants word for how valuations were ‘systematically’ assessed.

the EFL conceded defeat on the ground valuation but appealed the amortisation and subsequently won. The matter was then referred back to the original disciplinary committee for determining the punishment. Derby were fined £100k and instructed to resubmit the accounts for 15/16, 16/17, and 17/18 by the end of august 2021 by which time the new season will have kicked off. The EFL are clearly very unhappy about that judgement too and by now you have to question whether they are really behaving appropriately.

what happens next? 

the revised accounts for 15/16 will show an increased loss but we might just be within ffp limits for the three year max loss.

the revised accounts for 16/17 will show an increased loss and we will probably easily fail to meet the max £39m loss over 3 years target.

the revised accounts for 17/18 will probably show an increased profit and will be ok

the subsequent years for which the accounts have not been submitted will now have the benefit of a bigger profit in 17/18 regarding the three year maximum loss as the losses which Derby deferred into the year of the ground sale will now have been already incurred in earlier years.

then the EFL will demand a further punishment and a points deduction and there will be another legal challenge etc etc etc. Meanwhile we will have been in a transfer embargo for gods knows how long and will be unable to change the ownership. 
 

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Raminpeace said:


you are right that it relates to amortisation but you’re wrong about the EFL - there were no warnings. Far from it. 

 

the EFL had approved the accounts for the relevant years. 
the method of assessing amortisation was widely reported in commentaries by Swiss ramble and others. It wasn’t a secret. The EFL raised no objection. 
then came the whole business of the ground sale and the valuation. Once again the EFL approved the accounts which amazed me tbh, 

Middlesbrough we’re not happy and raised it at a meeting of the clubs, and we’re defeated in a vote. 
then boro took legal action against the EFL and possibly Derby, I can’t remember.

the EFL then started to demand evidence regarding the ground valuation and there was a bit of a row because they went to a third party surveyor who put a low valuation on the ground. Still the amortisation issue was not raised.

after a pause  the EFL brought charges against Derby in relation to both the ground valuation and the amortisation method of accounting. By this time the club and EFL had seriously fallen out. The disciplinary committee found in favour of Derby on all counts  apart from a criticism that the change in the method of calculating amortisation was not clearly stated in the accounts. It was apparent that there had been a big fall out with the EFl over evidencing the ground valuation and that eventually Derby stopped co-operating with the EFL and ignored their questions preferring to trust the disciplinary committee than the EFL to decide matters. The justification by the disciplinary committee for approving the ground valuation was really thorough and the evidence of the league’s valuation surveyor was torn to shreds. The justification for the decision regarding amortisation seemed a bit charitable because of a lack of evidence as to how the valuations were calculated. The committee seemed to just take Derby and the accountants word for how valuations were ‘systematically’ assessed.

the EFL conceded defeat on the ground valuation but appealed the amortisation and subsequently won. The matter was then referred back to the original disciplinary committee for determining the punishment. Derby were fined £100k and instructed to resubmit the accounts for 15/16, 16/17, and 17/18 by the end of august 2021 by which time the new season will have kicked off. The EFL are clearly very unhappy about that judgement too and by now you have to question whether they are really behaving appropriately.

what happens next? 

the revised accounts for 15/16 will show an increased loss but we might just be within ffp limits for the three year max loss.

the revised accounts for 16/17 will show an increased loss and we will probably easily fail to meet the max £39m loss over 3 years target.

the revised accounts for 17/18 will probably show an increased profit and will be ok

the subsequent years for which the accounts have not been submitted will now have the benefit of a bigger profit in 17/18 regarding the three year maximum loss as the losses which Derby deferred into the year of the ground sale will now have been already incurred in earlier years.

then the EFL will demand a further punishment and a points deduction and there will be another legal challenge etc etc etc. Meanwhile we will have been in a transfer embargo for gods knows how long and will be unable to change the ownership. 
 

 

The EFL are making it up as they go along. Whilst i admire Wycombe as a club, and their fans, it's madness the way the EFL treat you and us.
The goalposts change at Gibsons whim. What he has on the other members, God only knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not always cheating that gets you in the poo. Signing the wrong players, players that don’t click or get injured, not selling at the right time because you want another crack at it and feel the players are good to go again then flop...and then start to make bad decisions around raising funds....That’s when things start to spiral and accounts get scrutinised. 
 

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 in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...