Admin appeals 12 point deduction

[Trickytreesreds]

Who mentioned 9 + 3 apart from you TTR? My post, which you quoted and answered, states QUOTE If accepting the 12 in return for "only an extra 3" means getting a sale completed UNQUOTE. When I went to school 12 + 3 was 15.

The 12 being for Administration and 3 for FFP.

OK lets start again.
12 is for going into admin. That's the rule not really an argument.

Breaking FFP. The league said DCFC was under a 9point deduction for punishment, + 3 more if wages are not paid.

Now you are saying the punishment is 3?
Reading have been told to expect a 9 point hit for breaking FFP. Do you see the logic here?
would you take that lying down as a Reading owner, never mind the likes of Wycombe?

[Geoff Parkstone]

TTR, dont get your knickers in a twist - no penalties have been assessed yet other than the base 12, which the administrators think may be negotiable but IM not sure why. The subsequent breaches of FFP are a bit more complex, since they stem from a retrospective adjustment to the accounts since seveal years after DCFC submitted accounts and FFP calculations, the EFL decided they didnt like them.

Thus retrospectively we breached FFP it seems. I would contend that in good faith we did not believe that to be the case until several years later when it was too late to remedy the problem. Had DCFC known that they were in breach at the time, it may well be that remedial action could have taken place contemporaneously and thus mitigated the breaches during the intervening 3 or 4 years.

Thus this isn't quite the same thing as has been seen at other clubs, and so I dont see why you draw comparisons between apples and oranges. Well I do see why you do it, but that doesn't validate your observation or comparisons.

I would say MA is right and this is all a matter of negotiation to get an overall deal done so that we as a club can move forward, find new owners and start to rebuild again. If it means we go down, then so be it. No real harm done as long as its budgeted for. But if you continue beating a sick dog, one day its going to die and leave a bigger mess to clean up when a bit of TLC might result in a tidier situation all round

[MadAmster]

OK lets start again.
12 is for going into admin. That's the rule not really an argument.

Breaking FFP. The league said DCFC was under a 9point deduction for punishment, + 3 more if wages are not paid.

Now you are saying the punishment is 3?
Reading have been told to expect a 9 point hit for breaking FFP. Do you see the logic here?
would you take that lying down as a Reading owner, never mind the likes of Wycombe?

Yeah, let's start again.

We currently have a 12 point penalty for going into Admin. That is TWELVE. The appeal has been adjourned so we still have that TWELVE point deduction in place for going into Admin. TWELVE POINTS!!

There have been various number thrown around from various places about how many points deduction there might be for any FFP infringements. None of those reports have been OFFICIAL reports from either the EFL or DCFC. THESE WILL BE OVER AND ABOVE the 12 points deducted for entering Administration. 9 points has been bandied about in the press which would make it 21 in total. Mel, in his infamous Radio Derby interview said 4 points which make 16 in total. Today the appeal has been adjourned according to news sources and those same sources have mentioned a 3 point deduction for FFP infringements making 15 in total. I hope that makes it all clear to you as you seem to be under the misaprehension that I have said we'll end up with less than 12 in total. I HAVEN"T.

Which part of QUOTE If accepting the 12 in return for "only an extra 3" means getting a sale completed UNQUOTE. When I went to school 12 + 3 was 15. leads you to believe I was claiming we'd end up with a total 3 point penalty when it should be quite clear from what I wrote (the word EXTRA being a huge clue) that I was saying 12 + 3?

I even wrote in the bit you quoted that QUOTE When I went to school 12 + 3 was 15. The 12 being for Administration and 3 for FFP. UNQUOTE

BTW - I wasn't saying anything, merely reporting what was in the press and saying that IF there has been a compromise and we get the full 12 for Admin plus only an extra 3 FFP for not going further with our appeal then that would be good.

Reading? At the moment they have had ZERO points deducted............... How much did they exceed FFP by? I don't know. Do you? How much has DCFC exceeded FFP by? I don't know. Do you?

[Trickytreesreds]

Yeah, let's start again.

We currently have a 12 point penalty for going into Admin. That is TWELVE. The appeal has been adjourned so we still have that TWELVE point deduction in place for going into Admin. TWELVE POINTS!!

There have been various number thrown around from various places about how many points deduction there might be for any FFP infringements. None of those reports have been OFFICIAL reports from either the EFL or DCFC. THESE WILL BE OVER AND ABOVE the 12 points deducted for entering Administration. 9 points has been bandied about in the press which would make it 21 in total. Mel, in his infamous Radio Derby interview said 4 points which make 16 in total. Today the appeal has been adjourned according to news sources and those same sources have mentioned a 3 point deduction for FFP infringements making 15 in total. I hope that makes it all clear to you as you seem to be under the misaprehension that I have said we'll end up with less than 12 in total. I HAVEN"T.

Which part of QUOTE If accepting the 12 in return for "only an extra 3" means getting a sale completed UNQUOTE. When I went to school 12 + 3 was 15. leads you to believe I was claiming we'd end up with a total 3 point penalty when it should be quite clear from what I wrote (the word EXTRA being a huge clue) that I was saying 12 + 3?

I even wrote in the bit you quoted that QUOTE When I went to school 12 + 3 was 15. The 12 being for Administration and 3 for FFP. UNQUOTE

BTW - I wasn't saying anything, merely reporting what was in the press and saying that IF there has been a compromise and we get the full 12 for Admin plus only an extra 3 FFP for not going further with our appeal then that would be good.

Reading? At the moment they have had ZERO points deducted............... How much did they exceed FFP by? I don't know. Do you? How much has DCFC exceeded FFP by? I don't know. Do you?

But i said that ?

Administration= 12 points. agreed y/n?

FFP, it was said by sky sports in September via EFL, that nine points was the proposed punishment. 3 suspended pending infringements.
Sheff Weds, were going to be given 12 points but this was reduced to 6 by arbitration, but still applied last season. Ultimately it didn't save them,
DCFC escaped that season unpunished, to the disgust of Wycombe.
What i do know about Reading, was that it was a similar situation with a dodgy stadium sale, as they knew they were sailing close to the wind.
Of course they haven't been docked yet But they have been told to expect 9 points, or at very least 6.

My point is all about, breaching FFP and coming up with floating punishments, opens up all cans of worms.
Can you imagine Derb only getting 3 points/ Reading 9/ Sheff Weds 6? Throw Wycombe in that.

I really don't see how they can be lenient, when this has dragged on like this.
It's like going to court and pleading not guilty. Expect more time on the sentence.

[Geoff Parkstone]

"What i do know about Reading, was that it was a similar situation with a dodgy stadium sale, as they knew they were sailing close to the wind."

But our stadium sale, however dodgy it may have been in your eyes, was ot subject of any penalty. So there for a start is a big difference in the scenarios of the 2 clubs. You simply cannot draw comparisons between punishments without understanding the charges and taking into account the circumstances.

If a murderer and a pickpocket were both found guilty of breaching the la, would you expect them to have the same punishment?

[MadAmster]

But i said that ?

1. Administration= 12 points. agreed y/n?

2. FFP, it was said by sky sports in September via EFL, that nine points was the proposed punishment.

3. 3 suspended pending infringements.

4. Sheff Weds, were going to be given 12 points but this was reduced to 6 by arbitration, but still applied last season. Ultimately it didn't save them,

5. What i do know about Reading, was that it was a similar situation with a dodgy stadium sale, as they knew they were sailing close to the wind.
Of course they haven't been docked yet But they have been told to expect 9 points, or at very least 6.

6. My point is all about, breaching FFP and coming up with floating punishments, opens up all cans of worms.
Can you imagine Derb only getting 3 points/ Reading 9/ Sheff Weds 6? Throw Wycombe in that.

7. I really don't see how they can be lenient, when this has dragged on like this.
It's like going to court and pleading not guilty. Expect more time on the sentence.

1. Yes. Look back and I put it in BOLD type. I have also posted on here that I saw NO reason for us to appeal. However, using the appeal as a possible bargaining chip does look like it might have been a good move.

2. Sky Sports and other outlets said 9. The EFL and DCFC have said absolutely NOTHING on it. In fact, at the time Sky reported 9 points the EFL response was that the discussions were ONGOING.

3. The 3 suspended had nothing to do with FFP. They were put there "just in case" we were late with the wages again.

4. Wednesday's 12 points (reduced to 6 on appeal) were for putting the proceeds of the ground sale into a previous year's accounts to avoid exceeding FFP. The EFL found that Derby's ground sale was above board. I'm not sure why you even mentioned the Wendy deduction as it is not relevant to any punishment Derby have had or might get at this time.

5. Reading. Dodgy stadium sale you say. If you're right then it has no relevance to any FFP measures taken against Derby.

6. As already stated in 4 and 5 above, the transgressions of Wednesday and Reading are not the transgression of which Derby have yet to be charged. I have yet to see an EFL statement saying Derby has been charge with exceeding FFP. Basically, you're trying to correlate the measures taken by SWFR and RFC on the ground sales with FFP measures Derby might get hit with if ever charged on the matter (semantics I know as we will get charged and punished, 99.9999999% certainty)

7. Dragging on. Hardly Derby's fault it's take so long. Covid hasn't helped the situation making it difficult to get people together for hearings and appeals which stretched proceedings. Decisions took forever to come, hardly Derby's fault. The EFL appealed the original not guilty verdicts. Also not Derby's fault.



You still haven't explained how you understood from my previous comments in this thread that we might only get 3 points total. I mentioned the 12 we already have. I said PLUS 3 making 15. As I have already explained, that 3 points was a press report, not my thoughts. I merely said that, if true, it would be great. You then go off on one using comparisons that are as leaky as a colander.

[Trickytreesreds]

1. Yes. Look back and I put it in BOLD type. I have also posted on here that I saw NO reason for us to appeal. However, using the appeal as a possible bargaining chip does look like it might have been a good move.

2. Sky Sports and other outlets said 9. The EFL and DCFC have said absolutely NOTHING on it. In fact, at the time Sky reported 9 points the EFL response was that the discussions were ONGOING.

3. The 3 suspended had nothing to do with FFP. They were put there "just in case" we were late with the wages again.

4. Wednesday's 12 points (reduced to 6 on appeal) were for putting the proceeds of the ground sale into a previous year's accounts to avoid exceeding FFP. The EFL found that Derby's ground sale was above board. I'm not sure why you even mentioned the Wendy deduction as it is not relevant to any punishment Derby have had or might get at this time.

5. Reading. Dodgy stadium sale you say. If you're right then it has no relevance to any FFP measures taken against Derby.

6. As already stated in 4 and 5 above, the transgressions of Wednesday and Reading are not the transgression of which Derby have yet to be charged. I have yet to see an EFL statement saying Derby has been charge with exceeding FFP. Basically, you're trying to correlate the measures taken by SWFR and RFC on the ground sales with FFP measures Derby might get hit with if ever charged on the matter (semantics I know as we will get charged and punished, 99.9999999% certainty)

7. Dragging on. Hardly Derby's fault it's take so long. Covid hasn't helped the situation making it difficult to get people together for hearings and appeals which stretched proceedings. Decisions took forever to come, hardly Derby's fault. The EFL appealed the original not guilty verdicts. Also not Derby's fault.



You still haven't explained how you understood from my previous comments in this thread that we might only get 3 points total. I mentioned the 12 we already have. I said PLUS 3 making 15. As I have already explained, that 3 points was a press report, not my thoughts. I merely said that, if true, it would be great. You then go off on one using comparisons that are as leaky as a colander.

Nixon saying on twitter, it is 12 + 9 for FFP,
Then you can sell.

[Trickytreesreds]

https://scontent.fman4-1.fna.fbcdn.n...9c&oe=61B1AEDF

[ramAnag]

https://scontent.fman4-1.fna.fbcdn.n...9c&oe=61B1AEDF

So let’s take it on the chin and get it done. If this is true we’re down and maybe that’s preferable to all the ‘will we...won’t we’ fuelled, on an almost daily basis, by the DT. It’s the hope that gets you and I for one am fed up with all the false hope and expectation.

If this is true everyone knows where they stand. We’ll be in League One next season...not the Championship and thankfully not League 2, as has occasionally been threatened. Above all the new owners will know what they’re getting and we can start afresh.

[Geoff Parkstone]

If that is true, and so much crap has been spoken in these last few months, then lets just get on with it. Accept our fate in League 1 and plan for next season with that most bizarre of things - some certainty. Hopefully this will give the buyers the opportunity to know what they are getting and they can bid based on a known, rather than volatile future. If that means Mel gets less and the creditors more, so be it - he's brought the storm down on us and himself

But its probably more uninformed speculation