Derby County CHARGED by the EFL.

[cherrypie7]

Got to be a points deduction and a fine,say 200 grand .They broke the rules and should be punished.

Nothing but cheating filthy scum!

9 point deduction like Birmingham seems completely fair.

[alfinyalcabo]

Derby County say EFL charge unlawful...well they would wouldn't they ..lol

[MadAmster]

Tich1 came over to gloat as has Rev72. Only to be expected that some whites would visit us for a laugh. No issue with that. DCFC has published a response to the charges. The EFL was kept up to date every step of the way on the sale of the stadium. The original valuation was even higher. The EFL asked the club to lower the sale price to £80M, Derby did just that. With regard to the player amortisation issue, again, DCFC has spoken to the EFL frequently over several seasons over this in the club's accounting and were told everything was OK. Now, the EFL has decided it wasn't OK and have charged the club. They appear not to be disputing Derby's claim that everything DCFC did was done in full transparency with the EFL and the EFL gave the green light to everything. The EFL is using the excuse that "they made a mistake". One they now expect DCFC to pay for?

How can the EFL agree with and encourage these actions by DCFC and then decide the EFL had made a mistake and then charge DCFC? It doesn't make sense.

Here is Derby's statement on the issue.............

The club will strongly contest the challenge to the valuation of Pride Park stadium, as well as the newly notified charge in respect of intangible fixed asset amortisation.
As a matter of law, the EFL is not entitled to bring either of the charges, having previously agreed to all of the arrangements surrounding the stadium sale and never having raised the issue of player amortisation before. The Club shall argue that the very bringing of the Charges itself is unlawful.
At all times, the Club has acted transparently with the EFL in its submissions for both FFP/P&S and, in respect of the charges above, had received written approval for all of its submissions in respect of this legislation. No allegation has been raised to the contrary by the EFL. Rather, the EFL now claims that it made a “mistake.”
The Stadium was valued by professional valuers immediately prior to the transaction. The transaction and valuation were discussed extensively with the EFL Executive, which asked for a relatively modest price adjustment which was accepted. The valuation report was prepared by a highly reputable and professional and independent firm, with industry experience, who had valued the stadium on two prior occasions, one in 2007, and one in 2013.
The Club discussed the rationale for the stadium sale with the EFL Executive, ahead of the transaction, supplied and discussed the valuation, and bar a small adjustment in respect of its FFP/P&S submissions, the Club was given written approval.
With regard to the Club’s player amortisation policy, this has been a long-term accounting policy and was again reported transparently to the EFL Executive as part of the Club’s submissions and these were again approved and signed off in writing.
While the Clubaccepts the EFL’s FFP/P&S regulations are complex and open to interpretation, it is critical when such matters have been discussed and reviewed in detail, that written approval from the EFL is the only basis on which a Club can be assured it has complied. These charges by the EFL Executive bring this fundamental aspect of governance into question. The EFL now claims it made a mistake and seeks to punish the Club that relied on the EFL’s approval. Such conduct is neither lawful nor fair.
Had the EFL not given the green light in writing in respect of both charges, the Club would have reacted accordingly. The Club cannot re-trace the steps of the actions it legitimately took in good faith as a result of EFL approval of both matters.
The EFL can choose to correct what they now see as an error in their decisions. However, it cannot punish the Club for its own errors. The Club shall therefore vigorously contest the charges and the EFL’s legal right to bring them. The Club and all staff will be making no further comment on these matters.

---------------------------------------------------------

The FA appears to underwrite DCFCs version of events. It will be interesting to see what the Independent Commission makes of it.

[WTF11]

Tich1 came over to gloat as has Rev72. Only to be expected that some whites would visit us for a laugh. No issue with that. DCFC has published a response to the charges. The EFL was kept up to date every step of the way on the sale of the stadium. The original valuation was even higher. The EFL asked the club to lower the sale price to £80M, Derby did just that. With regard to the player amortisation issue, again, DCFC has spoken to the EFL frequently over several seasons over this in the club's accounting and were told everything was OK. Now, the EFL has decided it wasn't OK and have charged the club. They appear not to be disputing Derby's claim that everything DCFC did was done in full transparency with the EFL and the EFL gave the green light to everything. The EFL is using the excuse that "they made a mistake". One they now expect DCFC to pay for?

How can the EFL agree with and encourage these actions by DCFC and then decide the EFL had made a mistake and then charge DCFC? It doesn't make sense.

Here is Derby's statement on the issue.............

The club will strongly contest the challenge to the valuation of Pride Park stadium, as well as the newly notified charge in respect of intangible fixed asset amortisation.
As a matter of law, the EFL is not entitled to bring either of the charges, having previously agreed to all of the arrangements surrounding the stadium sale and never having raised the issue of player amortisation before. The Club shall argue that the very bringing of the Charges itself is unlawful.
At all times, the Club has acted transparently with the EFL in its submissions for both FFP/P&S and, in respect of the charges above, had received written approval for all of its submissions in respect of this legislation. No allegation has been raised to the contrary by the EFL. Rather, the EFL now claims that it made a “mistake.”
The Stadium was valued by professional valuers immediately prior to the transaction. The transaction and valuation were discussed extensively with the EFL Executive, which asked for a relatively modest price adjustment which was accepted. The valuation report was prepared by a highly reputable and professional and independent firm, with industry experience, who had valued the stadium on two prior occasions, one in 2007, and one in 2013.
The Club discussed the rationale for the stadium sale with the EFL Executive, ahead of the transaction, supplied and discussed the valuation, and bar a small adjustment in respect of its FFP/P&S submissions, the Club was given written approval.
With regard to the Club’s player amortisation policy, this has been a long-term accounting policy and was again reported transparently to the EFL Executive as part of the Club’s submissions and these were again approved and signed off in writing.
While the Clubaccepts the EFL’s FFP/P&S regulations are complex and open to interpretation, it is critical when such matters have been discussed and reviewed in detail, that written approval from the EFL is the only basis on which a Club can be assured it has complied. These charges by the EFL Executive bring this fundamental aspect of governance into question. The EFL now claims it made a mistake and seeks to punish the Club that relied on the EFL’s approval. Such conduct is neither lawful nor fair.
Had the EFL not given the green light in writing in respect of both charges, the Club would have reacted accordingly. The Club cannot re-trace the steps of the actions it legitimately took in good faith as a result of EFL approval of both matters.
The EFL can choose to correct what they now see as an error in their decisions. However, it cannot punish the Club for its own errors. The Club shall therefore vigorously contest the charges and the EFL’s legal right to bring them. The Club and all staff will be making no further comment on these matters.

---------------------------------------------------------

The FA appears to underwrite DCFCs version of events. It will be interesting to see what the Independent Commission makes of it.

Given Derby Contys disgraceful behaviour surrounding "Bielsa-gate", are you really surprised that any (probably all) Leeds supporters would be delighted if Derby were to be sanctioned.

The fact (or otherwise) that the EFL have changed their tack would be something you would be used to if you were a Leeds supporter. Join the club, and no matter what Derbys response, don't be surprised if you get shafted (again, Leeds supporters can give you chapter and verse in that too).

[LeedsFTW]

"The Rams have leased back the ground, which was said to have been independently valuedat £80m despite it being on the club's books as an asset worth £41m, from a company owned by Morris."

Sounds like Derby may have told the EFL an edited version of information/valuations, got the green-light and then ripped the back out of it.

Now when a director of one company obtains a valuation from another company he owns - is that classed as independent? Not sure it is?

Stating the valuation of a stadium is £80 million then putting it down as an asset of £41 million, defo sounds like someone has fudged the books there.

[StensonRam]

I don't think I've ever read anywhere who the valuers were, would you like to share the name of them so we can see if Mel owns them then?

Other than that read the friggin statement, its all in there. DCFC state they were transparent all the way through the process, do you not think the EFL would notice that the valuers were owned by Mel, do you think they'd not query why the ground was valued at 80m when on the books at 41m

Can't believe how thick some of you can be...........READ THE STATEMENT!

[WTF11]

I don't think I've ever read anywhere who the valuers were, would you like to share the name of them so we can see if Mel owns them then?

Other than that read the friggin statement, its all in there. DCFC state they were transparent all the way through the process, do you not think the EFL would notice that the valuers were owned by Mel, do you think they'd not query why the ground was valued at 80m when on the books at 41m

Can't believe how thick some of you can be...........READ THE STATEMENT!

And you're old enough to know, you don't believe all you read, eh?

[StensonRam]

On here yeah! But I believe an official club statement

If you think the valuers were a company owned by Mel and not independant then tell us who they were, I don't think Mel is stupid enough to use his own company do you?

[MadAmster]

Sheff Wed have said the exact same thing. EFL kept up to speed all the way through their ground sale as well. EFL signed off on everything, now they are incestigating SW.

If this does blow up in the EFLs face then I see Premier League divisions 1,2 and 3 (or similar names) happening sooner than later and the EFL will start with the Conference if they are lucky.

They won't be able to shaft DCFC (they've done us before) or you ever again.

[StensonRam]

Sheff Wed have said the exact same thing. EFL kept up to speed all the way through their ground sale as well. EFL signed off on everything, now they are incestigating SW.

If this does blow up in the EFLs face then I see Premier League divisions 1,2 and 3 (or similar names) happening sooner than later and the EFL will start with the Conference if they are lucky.

They won't be able to shaft DCFC (they've done us before) or you ever again.

If we win this it will make a mockery of the EFL and a not fit for purpose organisation