Derby down, Wycombe promoted

[latemodelchild]

I proper can't wait for boro to fall foul of ffp. 

 

While we've got some Derby fan posters here, what was the deal with Rooneys contract etc? Were his wages paid for by a 3rd party? I seem to think it was a sponsorship thing with a betting company or summat. And have the EFL queried that or was it all above board? And if so, is that a way round ffp? 

[Raminpeace]

Tbh they did us a favour by getting the whole issue of the ground sale and the valuation approved, but it seems to have become a bit of a vendetta since their valuation surveyor kicked things off.

 

what’s ridiculous is that it all relates to accountancy twaddle. 
I hated the fact that we sold the ground in order to pay for Andy weimann, Darren bent, Jacob Butterfield, Bradley Johnson, ikechi Anya, nick blackman, etc etc. Most of the signings were with the Wasserman agency which meant big fees for former CEO Sam Rush’s previous employer. 

what amazes me is that we’ve never been charged with the glaringly obvious misdemeanour. 

The third party payments to mr and mrs Ince senior when we signed Tom Ince. These are illegal payments disguised as fees for scouting. What a joke. 

[Raminpeace]

6 minutes ago, latemodelchild said:

I proper can't wait for boro to fall foul of ffp. 

 

While we've got some Derby fan posters here, what was the deal with Rooneys contract etc? Were his wages paid for by a 3rd party? I seem to think it was a sponsorship thing with a betting company or summat. And have the EFL queried that or was it all above board? And if so, is that a way round ffp? 

bet365 offered all clubs the option to have one superstar player that they would subsidise by paying half the wages. Only Derby took up the option and in so doing signed one of the worst players I seen for years. Dangerous from a dead ball but unable to run. We signed him as a striker but realised immediately that he couldn’t move and had to be parked in the centre circle. More classic Mel.

[Raminpeace]

32red not bet 365

[latemodelchild]

2 hours ago, Raminpeace said:

bet365 offered all clubs the option to have one superstar player that they would subsidise by paying half the wages. Only Derby took up the option and in so doing signed one of the worst players I seen for years. Dangerous from a dead ball but unable to run. We signed him as a striker but realised immediately that he couldn’t move and had to be parked in the centre circle. More classic Mel.

So it was like a half 3rd party type deal? He brought a lot of exposure to the club, guess he didn't cut it on the pitch though. I remember when he played for you at ours, seemed to sit in the middle and try to ref the game a bit. Always panicked when he got near the ball cos of what I knew he used to be like though. 

 

[Mr. Tom]

10 hours 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. 
 

 

Cheers, appreciate you taking the time to give such a detailed reply

[Aingarth]

On 23/06/2021 at 23:57, TomtheOwl95 said:

Well based on actual results they did.

 

The points deduction relegated us.

Don’t you think that something like 27 points lost when we were actually leading at some stage counted for more than6 points deducted? We needed 2 points at then end of the season to stay up. 

[Owls2k]

Mel Morris was seen by many as the model owner. Local, a fan, successful businessman. Turns out it's not just clueless foreign owners who mess things up

[Raminpeace]

Just now, Owls2k said:

Mel Morris was seen by many as the model owner. Local, a fan, successful businessman. Turns out it's not just clueless foreign owners who mess things up

Yeah. 
that’s really why I’m on here.

I find it fascinating that chansiri is openly derided, whereas in Derby…sssh no one must say anything negative about our glorious leader. Uncle Melvyn Papa daddy, Lord of all Things, King of Scotland, Morris. 

[TomtheOwl95]

2 hours ago, Aingarth said:

Don’t you think that something like 27 points lost when we were actually leading at some stage counted for more than6 points deducted? We needed 2 points at then end of the season to stay up. 

Well my point was that the team showed enough "fight" to stay up based on results. Not that we were an amazing side who should have stayed up with ease.

 

As bad (and boy we were bad) we had a better set of results over 46 games than three others, that's a fact.