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.

For P&S calculations,19/20 and 20/21 P&S losses are averaged. P&S for to 4 years to 2022 = 18/19 + (19/20 + 20/21)/2 + 21/22 The max allowance applied for the 2022 period is therefore... 0 + (5+5)/2 + 2.5 = 7.5

I think that's a misunderstanding of how the new rule is implemented. The instinctive reaction of a few is that it's an additional £5m allowance in 19/20 and 20/21 which didn't apply previously when the penalty was applied. The reality is the £5m cap is the reason we failed the 2021 period by £1.96m. I understand why they decided on a cap as it prevents clubs like Stoke included a massive chunk due to Covid impairment. However, I'm surprised they didn't come up with a basic rule to only allow match receipts and commercial losses. In our case, that's at least £13m and a net £4m impact on the 2021 period. The difference being a failed 2021 period or not (18% of our points deduction), and a Wycombe claim disappearing. There is no logic to a max £5m allowance.

Disagree on "isn't much mitigation". Relevance of which company owns the stadium? The same fee would be paid one way or another so it doesn't matter at all. Wycombe's case was/is exceptionally weak. In simple terms, they disagreed with the EFL's processes. This'll just be paying their legal fees so far. No £81.1m had to be proven to be of fair value. Any transfer of stadium to a new club owner would not have to pay fair value.

If he wanted money for it he'd be charging rent. £0 paid or requested since entering admin...

If it went to DC/LAP, there wouldn't be any "taking the piss" points, as evidenced by the previous decision documents. If anything, they would give reductions for various issues - "acting in good faith", delay between the infringement and charge/penalty, inability to act upon overspend to reduce losses which could have resulted in a lower penalty or even no penalty at all, etc... Reading, I think would only get a small reduction in penalty for owning up to the infringement (as per BCFC), but may also get an additional point for losses in the final year exceeding previous years. Mel will get nothing for the stadium. PB gives MSD the money owed for the loan(s), and the stadium is given to the new owner / club.

Yes

To be honest, I imagine it would have been much lower than that. I think we all know Derby would have lumped as much under 'Covid impairment' as possible. There's only Lawrence, Bielik and Jozwiak left who were bought for anything above a nominal fee. Based on their contract lengths remaining we'd have been slightly better off in terms of P&S for the two P&S periods you refer to. The period after those though would have been quite a bit worse (3 years to 2024)

Still on about the stadium? The sale price was proven to be fair and the decision wasn't even appealed by the EFL. Move on.

Crying? Read back and you'll see that I agreed with Mr Pop that we shouldn't have been able to 'keep' Plange based on the fact we couldn't keep Jagielka. Special dispensation was granted because it took us above the allowable squad size limit - Jagielka and Baldock taking us to 25. Baldock's contract wasn't renewed, and Marshall join QPR on a free. Extending Jagielka's contract should have been allowed as the squad size was kept to 23 and he would have been on the same wage as before (within the terms agreed with the EFL). Someone suggested Plange staying may have been allowed due to going below a squad size of 16, which doesn't appear to be the case.

Based on which metric? I would refer to the EFL's embargo rules page but it states there that existing players can have their contracts extended during an embargo - clearly not the case with Jagielka. Over 21s - 11, so why couldn't Jagielka extend his deal as well? At least 3 starts - 18. Isn't the minimum 16? Established player (over 21 and 5 starts) - 11, again why not Jagielka?