AnotherDerbyFan

More like a £20m improvement to a £5m loss at the very least, when exclusions are accounted for.

Went into administration in July 2020 and exited in March 2021. Last set of accounts prior to entering was for the 18/19 season (March 2020) In March 2022, the new owners (Phoenix 2021 Limited) released a partial 20/21 set of accounts. 19/20 accounts were never submitted to Companies House. Full year for 20/21 have not been submitted either. P&S submission will have been submitted to the EFL for all relevant periods.

For what it's worth, the 'wage bill' during the first 8 weeks of admin worked out as £14m over the season. A good £2-2.5m must have been knocked off in January. Reports suggested wages of about £1.6m needed to be paid in May and June (£19.2m per season) I'm guessing Matt Hughes' £8m is just players.

What did Wigan do?

Last time I checked, the terms for exiting administration are not "must struggle". Wigan exited administration in March 2021, yet I didn't see a single person saying it's not fair because they didn't struggle (winning the league instead) We also paid wages on time every month last season and have now completed our term under embargo (for P&S reasons and administration). All of our signings are within the business plan as agreed with the EFL. A week ago we only had 5 'senior' players contracted to the club, so it's not as if signings weren't expected. All for free too, unlike Wigan, who spent over £600k on a single player.

It's almost as if Derby won't have higher revenue than half of the Championship next season despite being a league below and without the TV money.

You really are a very sad individual.

It was put in the Nov 2021 agreed decision. Then the new EFL requirement to use straight-line was announced in Feb 2022. None of this really matters as it won't be he council. yes yes Doesn't need to be fair value when they aren't related parties That was in 2011 when there was a recession. I wonder how much that impacted the interest rates payable. Despite everything that's happened over the past couple of years, I wouldn't expect to see much variance in interest. See above. Council bought it for £1.6m in 2011, then sold it for £1.7m in 2016

As I have stated many times, the precedent is one of HMRC getting as much as they possibly can. They will continue to deal on a case by case basis. If they think they can get 100% from the next club or business to enter administration they will push for it. What you're arguing for is for HMRC to receive nothing.

The appointment seemed to make sense at the time. Wassall was previously caretaker manager and despite having a decent record displayed a lot of inexperience as first team managers, and some experienced players (Shackell) looked down on him. Pearson came in to take a no nonsense approach. Thing is, he took a very good 433 side and tried to make 442 work. Loaned Martin out to Fulham and splashed £12m on Vydra and Anya (when we had 6 wingers on the books already - Weimann, Ince, Russell, Bennett, Blackman, Camara). Then opted to play Butterfield on the wing. The football was awful, the performances were awful, the results were awful... if the meeting with MM didn't go the way it did, he would have been sacked soon enough anyway. Fron the comments at the time, I picture Pearson diving across the desk in Mel's office... ?

Private email. The EFL don't have the capacity to check reports at all, nevermind 'minor' details. Definitely. Would have saved a lot of uproar and wouldn't reflect as badly on the EFL. Could easily define what is allowable. Even if that was as basic as the difference in match and commercial income compared with 18/19. I think that argument is against Parry's "every club uses straight-line' comment.

@Mr Popodopolous @Davefevs According to Parry, clubs can apply for a larger Covid allowance. £5m is just the maximum which goes "without verification".

That's kind if the issue here. If £5m was the figure set, there's still a significant amount of income lost due to Covid that isn't accounted for. £9m match receipts in a normal season, resulting in a minimum of £2m deficit in the P&S calculations. Coincidentally, that would have been enough to avoid a penalty in the 2021 period. It doesn't matter which accounts us common folk use to play around with the numbers as long as the correct additions/deductions are made to get a reliable estimate. P&S calculations will have been using the ultimate parent company though.

Not yet

The EFL kindly shared the figures... Nixon has kindly shed a bit of light on the 2021 overspend too... Translated into English: "the breakdown of the 9 points was never worked out, so no-one will ever know if the deduction for the 2021 period was 1, 2,3 or more points out of the total 9." Proportionally, it would be 2 points.