Who will Wayne sign??

[MadAmster]

It seems the EFL are playing silly buggers with Derby - first they had to be persuaded that the players who played in the FA cup tie weren't players of professional standing and now it seems they ahve adopted a more restrictive rule to that label, by including players that ahve progressed from the academy, or do progress from the academy, which means that the following young players Louie Sibley, Max Bird, Jason Knight, Festy Ebosele, Jack Stretton, Kornell McDonald and Jordan Brown are currently classed as player sof professional standing, when under usual circumstances they wouldnt be.

That is what the ongoing discussion with the EFL is about to remove the definition from these academy players which would free up places for more incomings.

Rumours about a 33 year old polish winger on a free who was released by West Brom and a CB and CM from Man Utd and Delap from city on loan as well.

Disagree with your list Swale. The EFL definition of a player of professional standing is one who has played one or more senior games for the 1st XI. Those players whose only 1st team app was the Chorley cup tie have been given dispensation due to the circumstances surrounding the game (entire 1st team squad in quarantine/self isolation). Prior to the Huddersfield game the players you mentioned had:

Louie Sibley 41 appearances
Max Bird 42
Jason Knight 74 plus 7 full international caps
Festy Ebosele Played the Chorley game. 1 sub app against Norwich
Jack Stretton 4 apps for DCFC and 5 for Stockport on loan
Kornell McDonald debuted as sub against Brentford last December and has 3 apps
Jordan Brown 1 sub app against WBA July 2020

All of the players you mentioned are "players of professional standing" even discounting the Chorley game.

[swaledale]

Disagree with your list Swale. The EFL definition of a player of professional standing is one who has played one or more senior games for the 1st XI. Those players whose only 1st team app was the Chorley cup tie have been given dispensation due to the circumstances surrounding the game (entire 1st team squad in quarantine/self isolation). Prior to the Huddersfield game the players you mentioned had:

Louie Sibley 41 appearances
Max Bird 42
Jason Knight 74 plus 7 full international caps
Festy Ebosele Played the Chorley game. 1 sub app against Norwich
Jack Stretton 4 apps for DCFC and 5 for Stockport on loan
Kornell McDonald debuted as sub against Brentford last December and has 3 apps
Jordan Brown 1 sub app against WBA July 2020

All of the players you mentioned are "players of professional standing" even discounting the Chorley game.

Its not my list MA, it was a reference made by Derby that under the rules of the embargo, players that have been brought through the academy, i.e. haven't been purchased or signed from another club are not usually included in the 23 players of professional standing, irrespective of how many games they have played for the club.

Having looked at the EFL rules it seems to me that this would only apply where an academy player was brought into the first team subsequently, in other words Derby could or should be able to promote an academy player who has yet to play for the first team in an FA Cup or Championship game in addition to the 23 players they have.

Perhaps the club are arguing that their existing academy players who palayed in the first team should be discounted from this rule? We shall no doubt see what transpires.

[MadAmster]

Swale, it gets more complicated. I just had a look at the rules and they don't seem to make it clear whether the likes of Sibs, Bird, Knight etc are of professional standing through their incomplete explanation. Further down the page, they complicate things even further by introducing a new category of player, namely, the Established Player. That would seem to discount those players in the list.

Looking at the POPS rule, we are, according to EFL rules, in possession of of enough POPS to stop us signing any more players.

Looking at the EP rule, we should be able, within EFFL rules, to sign 7 more players provided they are either free agents or loans.

Here's the EFL page "explaining" things.... badly. https://www.efl.com/-more/governance...mbargoes-faqs/

[swaledale]

Swale, it gets more complicated. I just had a look at the rules and they don't seem to make it clear whether the likes of Sibs, Bird, Knight etc are of professional standing through their incomplete explanation. Further down the page, they complicate things even further by introducing a new category of player, namely, the Established Player. That would seem to discount those players in the list.

Looking at the POPS rule, we are, according to EFL rules, in possession of of enough POPS to stop us signing any more players.

Looking at the EP rule, we should be able, within EFFL rules, to sign 7 more players provided they are either free agents or loans.

Here's the EFL page "explaining" things.... badly. https://www.efl.com/-more/governance...mbargoes-faqs/

Cheers, there was a quote from Rooney or the Rams CEO, in some media to the effect that they should be able to get more players in.

[ramAnag]

Unfortunately the latest comments from Rooney (in the DT) suggest he wants to sign Jagielka, Carroll and Baldock but is currently prohibited from doing so because of the EFL stance and the 23 players rule.
Suspect that’s ’Roonspeak’ for...we have to get rid before we can bring anyone in...and anyone looking at the likes of Marshall, Lawrence and Buchanan will be all too aware of that.

[MadAmster]

Make that 8 players in the squad who don't meet the Established Player definition. Buchanan is the other.

[swaledale]

Unfortunately the latest comments from Rooney (in the DT) suggest he wants to sign Jagielka, Carroll and Baldock but is currently prohibited from doing so because of the EFL stance and the 23 players rule.
Suspect that’s ’Roonspeak’ for...we have to get rid before we can bring anyone in...and anyone looking at the likes of Marshall, Lawrence and Buchanan will be all too aware of that.

Except that in the case of Lawrence and Buchanan the club has clearly said they won't leave (unless there is a silly offer of course) and getting rid of those would make no sense in that we can under current embargo only sign players on a 1 year contract, at a certain salary, so not going to be able to replace them.

Marshall certainly seems to be available, and that makes sense, Rooney has also clearly said we can't afford to let players leave. So the current situation is it seems that Derby are trying to clarify with the EFL this issue about academy players that ahve progressed to the first team not being counted as POPS.

If we are supposed to refile accounts this month, presumably if that happens and the EFL approve then the embargo is lifted, but it leaves little time for getting players in.

Looking at the list of players that ahve come through from the academy to the first team, if one includes those that have been sold on, then one wonders why (if he did) Mel Morris made the comment about managers not progressing academy players into the first team!

[Geoff Parkstone]

Re the refiling of accounts, it seems to me that changing the numbers to conform with a changed amortisation policy, and redrafting the policy note, would take little more than an hour or so of an accountant's time. If 3 years' figures needed amending then no more than a day, and this could all have been done in advance of the judgement being announced if they had wanted to., and sought the auditors' approval.

The issue therefore is more likely to be the consequences of refiling upon the P&S / FFP numbers. For example some of the older rolling 3 year figures, pre the ground sale, could then go into breach. If this is the case, and in effect the artifical inflation of the value of the ground cannot be backdated to cover older problems, then its not just a matter of filing them: its dealing with any penalties for retroactive breaches - which will take longer to resolve.

My suspicion is that the reason the EFL fought so hard over what seemed a trivial breach is that they could see the retroactive impact of forcing a policy change, and figured that if they couldn't force us into breach by eliminating the profit on the ground sale, they could do it on the pre ground sale numbers in years before the sale?

Of course the counter argument may be that we could increase the value of the ground in older years accounts based on its eventual sale value if we are made to restate older years accounts due to changing amortisation policy!

All rather machiavellian, but there must be something more complex than just filing some amended accounts involved, given the current temporary embargo hinges on filing - eg when we do file, the transfer embargo may not disappear but in fact become more severe?

[MadAmster]

... or the club is very aware that, once in the hands of EFL accountants, those accounts will clearly show that we have exceeded FFP limits on at last one of the 3 year cycles. That leads them to and the accounts in on the last day permitted, it will tke time then for the accounts to be scrutinised and accepted/rejected. That will then be followed by charges if there's anything untoward like breaching FFP. Then there's a EFL "trial", followed some time later by the verdict and any sanctions which we can then appeal..... all designed to make it impossible to relegate us immediately and be replaced by Wycombe.

[swaledale]

... or the club is very aware that, once in the hands of EFL accountants, those accounts will clearly show that we have exceeded FFP limits on at last one of the 3 year cycles. That leads them to and the accounts in on the last day permitted, it will tke time then for the accounts to be scrutinised and accepted/rejected. That will then be followed by charges if there's anything untoward like breaching FFP. Then there's a EFL "trial", followed some time later by the verdict and any sanctions which we can then appeal..... all designed to make it impossible to relegate us immediately and be replaced by Wycombe.

The relegation threat has gone MA, even the EFL have admitted that in not appealing the panels verdict. However, failing to pay wages of the players on any occasion before June 2022 will result in 3pts being deducted.

Failure to refile the accounts by the date stated and/or the accounts showing Derby have breached FFP rules will result in further sanctions, which could be applied this season, depending upon the process and any appeal Derby may make.