Non-Boro Football

[Changing Times 12,343]

20 minutes ago, Old Codger said:

so basically we can just expect them to get a fine rather than the mass orchidectomy that popular opinion favours.

They still could get a points deduction of some kind, with the way the EFL, and these independent panels work, anything seems possible.  I just don't see points deduction for the season just gone, and I think that's why they've waited to announce it.  If the verdict was reached a couple of weeks ago then they could have announced it there and then.  The story broke yesterday I think, the day after the season ended.  It can't be a coincidence.

[ScarBoro 857]

22 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

To me there has to be a set time limit or something like that, in which the case and any appeal needs to be heard and dealt with.  Things being dragged out doesn't benefit the football league, it can only really benefit the club involved by delaying any potential punishments until it's too late to effect that season.  Mind you, it would be helpful if the EFL could do it's job properly in the first place.  If they sign off on things then they should be ok.  Shouldn't need to be going back to look at things from a couple of years ago to see if it was actually ok or not at the time.

Thing is, it was pretty technical. I guess the FA have got someone looking at accounts submitted by each club, for things like stadium sales or where the auditors have put some kind of qualification on the accounts. This was simply a different way of depreciating players value, approved by the auditors, so no notes and unless you were really clued up would be easily missed. It was probably only when they got the complaints about the stadium sale they really looked at the accounts in depth and probably got an expert  to review them. A clever idea by someone that nearly came off.

I agree - the FL need to set out clear guidelines about timescales for hearing a case, how long to allow for an appeal and how quickly the appeal must be heard. They should also make the rules crystal clear about when punishments will apply and make the likely punishments for different offenses public.  That would provide a bit more faith in the process.

[Changing Times 12,343]

21 minutes ago, ScarBoro said:

Thing is, it was pretty technical. I guess the FA have got someone looking at accounts submitted by each club, for things like stadium sales or where the auditors have put some kind of qualification on the accounts. This was simply a different way of depreciating players value, approved by the auditors, so no notes and unless you were really clued up would be easily missed. It was probably only when they got the complaints about the stadium sale they really looked at the accounts in depth and probably got an expert  to review them. A clever idea by someone that nearly came off.

I agree - the FL need to set out clear guidelines about timescales for hearing a case, how long to allow for an appeal and how quickly the appeal must be heard. They should also make the rules crystal clear about when punishments will apply and make the likely punishments for different offenses public.  That would provide a bit more faith in the process.

But as I understand it, these weren't completely new practices.  There is more than one way to deal with amortisation in a set of accounts, and this is just one of them.  I suppose my point is, if you're signing off on the accounts then have people who know what they are doing, signing them off.  Otherwise, what's the point?  Just leave the accounts to HMRC to go through and whatever happens, happens.  If they say it's fine then the EFL should have nothing to do with it.  Or get experts in to look over them all from the beginning so you can fully understand what your clubs are doing.  It must have occurred to them that once FFP was introduced, clubs would look for ways around the regulations.  That's just common sense.

[DanFromDownSouth 1,706]

1 hour ago, Changing Times said:

I suppose my point is, if you're signing off on the accounts then have people who know what they are doing, signing them off.

I could be wrong, but I think after the Wigan situation, the EFL advertised for a role that was doing just that.

But what's laughable about that is the role was for 1 individual and the salary was relative peanuts. You'd probably need a small team to effectively check all the clubs accounts correctly.

It just shows how reactive these governing bodies are when it comes to governance. God only knows what a shambles the muted salary cap would have been.

[ScarBoro 857]

1 hour ago, Changing Times said:

But as I understand it, these weren't completely new practices.  There is more than one way to deal with amortisation in a set of accounts, and this is just one of them.  I suppose my point is, if you're signing off on the accounts then have people who know what they are doing, signing them off.  Otherwise, what's the point?  Just leave the accounts to HMRC to go through and whatever happens, happens.  If they say it's fine then the EFL should have nothing to do with it.  Or get experts in to look over them all from the beginning so you can fully understand what your clubs are doing.  It must have occurred to them that once FFP was introduced, clubs would look for ways around the regulations.  That's just common sense.

Different companies do have different amortization methods - and as long as the auditors are Ok with it showing a fair view, then the is no problem and the accounts get signed off. I’m sure I read somewhere though that the Derby method had never been used by anyone else in the FL. It was dreamt up by Derby, obviously because it helped them massively with FFP. I guess because everyone else in league used one method the FL didn’t have the sense to realise someone sometime would try to manipulate it. Consequently they didn’t ask the right questions, or tell whoever looked at the accounts to look for anything in amortization that seemed strange.

[ScarBoro 857]

32 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

I could be wrong, but I think after the Wigan situation, the EFL advertised for a role that was doing just that.

But what's laughable about that is the role was for 1 individual and the salary was relative peanuts. You'd probably need a small team to effectively check all the clubs accounts correctly.

It just shows how reactive these governing bodies are when it comes to governance. God only knows what a shambles the muted salary cap would have been.

To be fair, if you employed a consultant for a short period, he could probably draw up a list of questions for the clubs and their auditors to answer and certify that would uncover practically all attempts to manipulate the accounts. 

[TLF10 4,496]

Somewhat irrelevant and somewhat relevant info. Preston appoint caretaker boss Frankie McAvoy as new boss. He won 5 of his 8 games in charge. Drawing 2 and losing 1. Paul Gallagher has retired and become 1st team coach there

[DanFromDownSouth 1,706]

10 hours ago, ScarBoro said:

To be fair, if you employed a consultant for a short period, he could probably draw up a list of questions for the clubs and their auditors to answer and certify that would uncover practically all attempts to manipulate the accounts. 

That's a good point to be fair!

[Borodane 6,301]

17 hours ago, Changing Times said:

As I understand it the figures are a lot less than that but that might not be the case of course.  I thought it was the stadium sale that had the bigger impact.  Either way, they won't get a points deduction this season, as Humpty said there is a cut off for a punishment to take place.  Part of me thinks that the reason these panels are giving their decisions after the March cut off point is a deliberate action to push any punishments over to the following season, so that nothing they do effects the current one.  No proof of course, just a hunch.

One can hope that the panel will rule that either you cheated or you didn't, and the amount doesn't really matter. But I agree that I doubt anything will happen this season.

[DanFromDownSouth 1,706]

Brentford have recently appointed a coach who will become "Head of individual development", "He will be responsible for monitoring the individual development programme of Brentford’s high potential players" I suppose you could argue that every coach should be doing that anyway. But if you have a standalone person(s) to improve a player via coaching, outside of the management/match tactic set-up (i.e the manager/assistant etc), that could be very beneficial. I feel like a role like that would be perfect for someone like Aitor (if his personality allowed), remove him from the management side of things and allow him to focus on the coaching side.

 

[ScarBoro 857]

Re Derby.  From DM today

Derby avoided a points deduction last August when an independent disciplinary commission cleared them on two charges brought by the EFL.

One of those related to the £81million sale of Pride Park to a company set up by Morris, allowing the club to turn a loss into a profit.

The other — and the charge upon which the EFL have won their appeal — concerns Derby's valuation of players.

The club did not use the accepted practice of including the depreciation of player assets in their accounts and sources claim this removed losses in excess of £30million over a three-year period.

An appeal panel has now found Derby guilty of breaching EFL rules, although their punishment is yet to be determined by an independent commission. 

The timescale on this remains unclear and sources say it could be that they escape with a fine for the breach of accountancy practice.

However, sources state the second part of the process will involve the restatement of Derby's books using the correct method of player amortisation.

If it is found their losses are beyond the threshold of £39m over the three-year period allowed within EFL rules, another charge would be brought. This is where the EFL face a race against time.

Some senior figures within the EFL believe the case has been allowed to drag on for too long, especially given Derby were charged in January of last year, not long after Sheffield Wednesday were charged with financial breaches.

Wednesday were subsequently docked 12 points — reduced to six on appeal — and that proved the difference in relegating them following their draw at Derby on Saturday.

There is a frustration at the EFL and among some of their member clubs that Derby have avoided sanction so far

Sportsmail understands EFL chiefs want the club's sanction to be resolved with urgency so that any possible points deduction would be applied to this season, relegating Wayne Rooney's side from the Championship.

However, sources have revealed that Derby — owned by Mel Morris — have provided several procedural reasons as to why the case should be delayed.

It is understood the Rams have also refused to provide information that would allow for previous accounts to be recalculated, a process that could invoke another charge and potential points deduction. So it is likely any punishment handed to Derby would apply to next season. 
 

it looks as though Derby are using every last trick they can find to delay any punishment. Seems a bit like someone running up massive credit cards debt trying to get another card rather than sitting down and working out how to reduce spending. Getting EFL and other clubs backs up even further isn’t a good ploy.

Thing is, EFL should have insisted long ago that Derby provide the info that would have restated the accounts to the “norm”, so that they had that info available for the appeal result. I’m sure somewhere in the rules they could have demanded it. 

[TLF10 4,496]

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11696/12303268/derby-county-efl-quiet-on-reports-of-points-deduction-for-ffp-rule-breach
 

sky reporting points deduction and transfer embargo likely punishments.

[Blanco 4,917]

8 minutes ago, TLF10 said:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11696/12303268/derby-county-efl-quiet-on-reports-of-points-deduction-for-ffp-rule-breach
 

sky reporting points deduction and transfer embargo likely punishments.

I hope they deduct them 2 points for this season and 19 for the start of next season in League 1.

That might soften their cough 😷 

[RiseAgainst 3,793]

Never mind points deductions, shouldn't proven instances of cheating result in automatic relegation? If they've been fiddling the books for years and are now refusing to hand over accounts as a stalling tactic, a six-point deduction next season would be hopelessly inadequate - especially for Rotherham.

Given the way both clubs have behaved this season, it's sickening that Derby have stayed up and Wycombe have gone down. 

[Brunners 7,982]

Derbys potential new owner everybody.