AnotherDerbyFan

Just out of interest, how much of their debts did these current Championship clubs pay to exit administration? Middlesbrough Millwall Bournemouth (twice) QPR Barnsley Luton Coventry What about these non-Championship clubs? Charlton Palace (twice) Portsmouth (thrice) Leicester Ipswich Leeds Southampton Bolton Wigan I completely agree. If the rule exists then no exceptions should be made.

As has been stated many times... non of the interested parties will commit without knowing the full cost (they need to know what Boro and Wycombe will be owed, if anything). No PB can be announced until those claims are dealt with. The debt owed may be £60m+, but only c£28m needs to be repaid (plus MFC/WWFC). Agreement is in place with HMRC for 25% pending the result of MFC/WWFC arbitration. MM has said he will "not seek any recovery from the sale of the stadium". Debts owed to him will be written off. Whether you want to believe it or not, the two claims ARE what's blocking Derby from coming out of administration.

Because we rejected a derisory offer for Buchanan? I think it was so bad, we would have been better off letting his contract expire in the summer and get the standard compensation for player under 24.

The difference between Derby and Bury is the number of people who have made their voices heard. Without the political pressure I'm certain the EFL would have been stricter in their approach. Bidder 1 - Asking price met, doesn't want to purchase the stadium, may or may not be willing to deal with the two claims Bidder 2 - Asking price met including stadium, but MFC/WWFC claims need to be dealt with first Bidder 3 - Mel and the Admins have to knock a bit off what they're asking All 3 are willing to pay what is needed provided stadium or claims are out of the picture. If the claims are either dismissed or they're ruled as non-footballing creditors, a PB will be announced with them putting in enough to avoid the 15 point deduction. I don't follow your line of thinking regarding the business plan making it difficult to keep the squad together. Other than Byrne, Bielik, Lawrence and Jozwiak, there aren't many who're on high wages even for L1 level. I can't see the busines plan preventing us from keeping most of them. It's well known that most will be signing new deals as soon as the restrictions are lifted. If we manage to stay up, Lawrence will likely be staying too. Despite the restrictions this season, Rooney was still able to pull a very good squad together and I have no doubt he'd do a better job in the upcoming summer.

There is a common confusion that administration means a club MUST sell as many players as possible to cover the debt. The role of administrators is to give as much money as possible to the creditors. As things stand, there are 3 bidders willing to take over (however, all with different conditions). As long as there are bidders willing to take over, the creditors will get more money by NOT selling all of the players. To get to a position where someone can be named PB, one of two things has to happen. Mel covers some of the MSD loan MFC/WWFC claims are dismissed/cancelled

Priorities set by law ? As I previously said, HMRC will make judgments on a case by case basis, so that they receive as much as they possibly can. There is no bluff. Selling every registered player isn't going to raise the £37m needed to exceed the offer on the table. There are no assets to sell other than players and a few bits of silverware.

Because these decisions are made on a case by case basis. They know this is the maximum they can get. An insistence on more results in the club folding and HMRC getting even less due to the structure of the debt and the assets at the club. Only 6 first team players contracted beyond the summer. With compensation for other youngsters, we'd be lucky to pay back MSD and the administrators, never mind having enough left over to go to HMRC.

Administrators have received at least 1 official bid which meets the requirements set by the EFL. Previous offers on the table were conditional upon the Boro/Wycombe claims being ignored.

5th 6th Marshall, Baldock, Jagielka and Shinnie are the others.

Decent money isn't £500k. Stuck on a scholarship contract as a professional contract would have meant he was unavailable for the first team. Crazy rules. It basically left the club with the choice of accepting an offer now or letting it go to tribunal. That takes us to 6 youngsters who have left to join Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea over the past 3 seasons for a combined £3m.

The Boro claim in 2019 was only with regards to the Stadium. April 2019 - MFC queried, “in forceful terms”, the legitimacy of such a sale and leaseback arrangement May 2019 – MFC submitted a claim against Derby, stating we cheated P&S by selling the stadium for too much and it wasn’t arms length. July 2019 – MFC claim PPS should have been sold at a fair value of £22.8m July 19 – MFC officially threatened the EFL and DCFC with proceedings unless the EFL initiated disciplinary action against DCFC September 2019 – MFC served notice of arbitration to get profits from stadium sales excluded from P&S calculations Spetember 2020 – Boro started an arbitration against Derby and the EFL, in particular regarding the stadium valuation which allowed Derby to sign Waghorn It wasn't until the decision following the LAP verdict (July 2021) came out that they decided to come after us for amortisation instead.

Given the discussion in the House of Commons on Tuesday, I'll be very surprised if there isn't reform, no matter what the outcome for Derby is.

Bristol City have as good, if not better claim than Boro, considering we beat in you in the run in, pretty much ending your Playoff hopes. If you won that game, you would have finished 6th.

Liam Rosenior - Assistant Justin Walker - Coach, managed the U18s as we won the league in 18/19 league. FYI, that team contained McDonald, Cashin, Buchanan, Knight, Bird, Sibley, Thompson, Ebosele and Stretton who are all now in the first team squad. Also Delap who played a handful of games. Jason Pearcey - GK coach (promoted from academy) Luke Jenkinson - Fitness coach Then physios

oh dear... *delete* *delete* *delete*

Surely not? 4 seasons in the Championship would be 13,13,13,13 = 52/4*3 = £9.75m ?

Stoke and Blackburn would have been where my money went - but both are above Preston ?

Every club has a section of fans like that - they have no concept of what is affordable. I'm sure I could dig up a thread on this forum wondering why you aren't splashing the cash on £10m signings ? I hoped it would be included, but always excluded it from my calcs for the very reason of it being extremely unlikely to count. If a club fails one period, annual losses exceeding £13m would be 'reset' to £13m to calculate P&S losses for future periods. So for the 3 years to 2018, the calculation would be £13m + £13m + £0.6m = totalling £26m losses, rather than £42.6m if using the actual figures.

What are your thoughts on resets? Either they're reset and I've overestimated the drop in wage bill and/or change in revenue, or... they don't reset and I've underestimated wage bill and/or revenue increase.

I lie. Forgot about the reset values for the 2022 period. Correction: Estimate for 2022 is losses of £37.2m - just inside the P&S limit (assuming £13m rather than £5m per season)

There were plenty of occasions when I very much doubted you hoped that? The figures appear to reset based on my old calcs, although I am missing about £16m of losses - dependant on what P&S profit/loss was for 2020 To 20/21 should include 17/18 and not 21/22 To 21/22 should include 18/19 and not 22/23 My estimates: 14//15 -£5.6m 15/16 -£22.1m 16/17 -£19.9m 17/18 -£0.6m 18/19 -£29.2m 19/20 -£30.1m 20/21 -£12.3m 21/22 -£11.5m £8m underestimate for 2019 £6m underestimate for 2021 Estimate for 2022 is losses of £45.7m - just under £6m over the limit (let's hope my figures start to balance out ?)

That's the problem though. Both sides can't (or at least couldn't) agree on what is(was) acceptable, so accounts wouldn't be officially submitted as a result. It just seems like there needs to be an independent panel to make that call. Thoughts on this little snippet from the LAP judgment? It seems to have been skipped over by everyone up until now.

It's the back tracking on the appeal that frustrates me. Days to go until the hearing and not much longer until a verdict would have been announced... it just seems really odd. I can understand the P&S penalty being accepted just to speed things up. No takeover was going to happen until that was resolved so it was either accept it (whether we believed we were right or wrong) or let things drag on, This is where I would critisise the EFL for not cooperating enough to expedite a fair trial (given no side was willing to budge from their stance) I can't remember which accounts I based it off, but I had Reading down as a £32m overspend in the 3 years to 2020, then similar again for the 4 years to 2021. I want to see consistency in penalty between Derby and Reading. Not something like the suspended 3 points for paying 1 months wages late, then SWFC get the same for several months wages.

I touched on this a month ago (see next quote). We essentially had a pot of money, which had to get us through from March 2020 to a point of self-sustainability. Covid smashed though that pot meaning admin before we could be self-sustainable. Given all evidence points to wards the admin appeal being withdrawn I see 3 likely scenarios: we were never actually projected to be self-sustainable- being run at breakeven or a profit was reliant on regular player sales the claim was we would have been bought by someone in the 18 months between March 2020 and administration. the potential new owner thinks it's best to get it all out of the way asap, regardless of the the likely outcomes, just to have a clear picture of the future.

I stand by the view that the accounts hadn't been submitted due to the ongoing amortisation case. The outcome of the amortisation appeal was to submit accounts in line with FRS102. The club and the EFL still couldn't agree on if the new accounts were compliant or not. If there was a plan which took account of the HMRC tax, then I don't think that would be a problem. It's up to HMRC as to whether they negotiate or not. If the do, then I expect tighter restrictions on the club than if it's paid in full. I would find it immoral to negotiate a few £m off the tax bill and then go out to spend money in January or the summer. I assumed that there was enough money to get through to a point of self-sustainability, otherwise the appeal is pointless.