Derby County

[Hxj]

40 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Club goes bust I'm a free agent and you can have me for a percentage of what you would have spent on a transfer fee.

The player registration actually passes to the EFL on a liquidation.  They can then negotiate a fee with the purchasing club which is used to repay any unpaid Football Creditors in the first instance.  It won't have much impact on the individual players as they will need new contracts to get paid.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Hxj

[Hxj]

So the only facts now known with any real certainty in this whole sorry mess are:

Derby County need to provide 'proof of funds' of around £7 million on or before 1 February

No formal bids have been made

There is no preferred bidder

All the indicative bids result in Derby County not meeting the EFL requirement that unsecured creditors receive 25% of the amount due, so on that basis a 15 point penalty next season as well

Nobody has a solution.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Hxj

[Sir Geoff]

2 hours ago, Monkeh said:

It also seems like the longer this goes on, the more evidence that the administrators haven't got a clue what they are doing and the paper is clutching at any straw thrown at them

Seemed like that on day one way they stormed in claiming they would overturn the points deductions.

[Monkeh]

28 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

No, free agents may sign for whoever they wish at any time.

That was the point about the 8 who'll be 'celebrated' (sic) this weekend. In their day when clubs folded the administrators retained their registrations to attempt to sell on, though that could take years. No income, can't play elsewhere. That's why they negotiated hard for their registrations plus the monies they took in lieu of contracts. No dream or benevolence on their part and who could blame them?

Part Bosman but rules have now changed. Club fails to fulfill your contract and registration reverts to you 

They have to be free agents before the transfer window closes in order to be able to register with another club outside of said window 

[Southport Red]

2 hours ago, Monkeh said:

 

 

I dont see how they can force the sale of pride Park,

That's like me forcing you to sell your house to pay my bills,

If Derby don't legally own pride Park and mel does then how can it be sold with out mels say so,

It's as if Mel knew the gamble sold himself the ground as an insurance policy incase his gamble didn't pay off,

Like Mel Morris didn't have the club's best interest in mind but his own and used the ground to cover his investment 

 

Remind you of anywhere nearer to home?  Up the Gloucester Road, for example?

[Betty Swallocks]

22 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

They have to be free agents before the transfer window closes in order to be able to register with another club outside of said window 

I think the rule’s slightly different if a club was to be liquidated. 

[Monkeh]

9 minutes ago, Betty Swallocks said:

I think the rule’s slightly different if a club was to be liquidated. 

Yea thats bit I don't understand, I'm hoping so, as thise players don't deserve to not be able to find work because of something beyond their control,

It's a bit like being made redundant but not being aloud to look for another job for 6 months due to said redundancy 

[East Londoner]

Courtesy of the Atlantic, it seems their plan is to avoid most of their debts and carry on regardless. Maybe it’s time to change the rules for this sort of scenario and relegate teams to the bottom division like what happened to Rangers

What has Quantuma proposed to do?

Quantuma has attempted to take advantage of a provision in the updated Corporate and Insolvency Government Act (2020) that could enable them to knock a massive chunk off Derby’s debts and render the claims from Wycombe and Middlesbrough effectively irrelevant.

The provision could allow them to offer the same 25p on the pound to HMRC that they owe unsecured creditors, and give Middlesbrough and Wycombe nothing. This plan was put to the Football League last week and could now go to an independent arbitrator to assess, as the change in the law has not yet been reflected in the EFL rulebook.

Quantuma is also confident these new law changes would prevent the two clubs from being named football creditors and are still awaiting clarification from the EFL as to why they are not permitted to cram down the claims from Wycombe and Middlesbrough. However, Middlesbrough contested this belief in a statement this week, stating: “Had (their claim) been finally determined, and an award made in favour of MFC, there would be no dispute that MFC would be a football creditor.”

The Football League have given the administrators until February 1 to find enough money to fund the club for the remainder of the season, or they could have their “golden share” suspended, which means the EFL could remove them from the Championship. As a result, Quantuma has directed its immediate attention to sourcing external funding to sustain the club until the end of the 2021-22 campaign.

[Betty Swallocks]

1 minute ago, Monkeh said:

Yea thats bit I don't understand, I'm hoping so, as thise players don't deserve to not be able to find work because of something beyond their control,

It's a bit like being made redundant but not being aloud to look for another job for 6 months due to said redundancy 

Yeah for sure. Footballers don’t get a lot of sympathy but regardless of their earnings etc, they still have mortgages and bills to pay. Not being able to earn a wage for 6 months could have serious consequences for some of them, most likely younger players as well. 

[Monkeh]

5 minutes ago, East Londoner said:

Courtesy of the Atlantic, it seems their plan is to avoid most of their debts and carry on regardless. Maybe it’s time to change the rules for this sort of scenario and relegate teams to the bottom division like what happened to Rangers

What has Quantuma proposed to do?

Quantuma has attempted to take advantage of a provision in the updated Corporate and Insolvency Government Act (2020) that could enable them to knock a massive chunk off Derby’s debts and render the claims from Wycombe and Middlesbrough effectively irrelevant.

The provision could allow them to offer the same 25p on the pound to HMRC that they owe unsecured creditors, and give Middlesbrough and Wycombe nothing. This plan was put to the Football League last week and could now go to an independent arbitrator to assess, as the change in the law has not yet been reflected in the EFL rulebook.

Quantuma is also confident these new law changes would prevent the two clubs from being named football creditors and are still awaiting clarification from the EFL as to why they are not permitted to cram down the claims from Wycombe and Middlesbrough. However, Middlesbrough contested this belief in a statement this week, stating: “Had (their claim) been finally determined, and an award made in favour of MFC, there would be no dispute that MFC would be a football creditor.”

The Football League have given the administrators until February 1 to find enough money to fund the club for the remainder of the season, or they could have their “golden share” suspended, which means the EFL could remove them from the Championship. As a result, Quantuma has directed its immediate attention to sourcing external funding to sustain the club until the end of the 2021-22 campaign.

That's the problem with not working with and accusing the efl of these things,

Hypothetically they did this,

All the football league has to do is deny them their golden share and boom they go non league over night,

The administrators shouldn't be playing hardball with the football league,

Also Middlesbroughs claim dates back to before the change in law so can be dismissed in that way as does the hmrc

Edited January 21, 2022 by Monkeh

[BTRFTG]

Interesting, that's the first I've ever heard of that.

Is that clause a standard addendum to all players contracts? Seems quite a restraint of trade to me. One assumes the EFL doesn't continue to fulfill the player's contract?

[chinapig]

6 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

That's the problem with not working with and accusing the efl of these things,

Hypothetically they did this,

All the football league has to do is deny them their golden share and boom they go non league over night,

The administrators shouldn't be playing hardball with the football league,

Also Middlesbroughs claim dates back to before the change in law so can be dismissed in that way

The convention is that laws cannot be applied retrospectively certainly. Does the law in any event really allow companies to only pay 25% of sums due to HMRC? Derby may again reap the consequences of constantly delaying the process.

The tactics the Administrators are now trying suggest that they do not believe they can secure a sale nor even name a preferred bidder despite their regular bullishness.

And having secured initial funding in the form of another loan from MSD why weren't the Administrators immediately seeking funds to get to the end of the season? Were they gambling on a sale being completed by now? Why did they need to be told by the EFL that they needed to provide proof of funds when that is common knowledge?

[Monkeh]

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The convention is that laws cannot be applied retrospectively certainly. Does the law in any event really allow companies to only pay 25% of sums due to HMRC? Derby may again reap the consequences of constantly delaying the process.

The tactics the Administrators are now trying suggest that they do not believe they can secure a sale nor even name a preferred bidder despite their regular bullishness.

And having secured initial funding in the form of another loan from MSD why weren't the Administrators immediately seeking funds to get to the end of the season? Were they gambling on a sale being completed by now? Why did they need to be told by the EFL that they needed to provide proof of funds when that is common knowledge?

The more you hear about the administrators the more I think they haven't got the club's best interest at heart and are in fact playing football manager with people's livelihood on the line

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Monkeh said:

They have to be free agents before the transfer window closes in order to be able to register with another club outside of said window 

Not where clubs cease to be members, though see HXJ's informative post.

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

The player registration actually passes to the EFL on a liquidation.  They can then negotiate a fee with the purchasing club which is used to repay any unpaid Football Creditors in the first instance.  It won't have much impact on the individual players as they will need new contracts to get paid.

Thanks to your knowledge I just looked up regulation 66 and strikes me, should a bigger club go, this could become a whole Bosman can of worms.

From a skim read it looks as though the EFL retains all rights over transfer elements within the player's contracts (academy aside,) whilst picking up no other liability from those contracts. Surely that's unfair restraint of trade? Reference is made to payments to member clubs being paid but not individual players.

The impact on a player is clearly where their personal valuation differs from that placed on them by the EFL. Say in the case of Knight his agent (illegal but happens all the time,) tells clubs he knows to be interested and in whom his client is interested to bid £1 for his client. Although the EFL value him much higher surely such offers could form the basis of a market valuation? If the EFL aren't paying the player and there's no 'consideration' I don't understand what right they'd have to constrain his ability to work?

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Interesting point of view about the action against Derby

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10424221/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Middlesbrough-Wycombes-lawsuits-Derby-based-fantasy-seasons.html

Poor piece imho.

34 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Interesting, that's the first I've ever heard of that.

Is that clause a standard addendum to all players contracts? Seems quite a restraint of trade to me. One assumes the EFL doesn't continue to fulfill the player's contract?

The above is what happened to Bury.
 

 

[BTRFTG]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Poor piece imho.

The above is what happened to Bury.
 

 

Davefevs - but HXJ's info is very interesting. Look at Regulation 66 of the EFLs Rules. I presume because only small fry have gone to date most players haven't spent long in limbo and have been allowed to go on frees. Better players with higher values, could be worth lawyers getting involved.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Davefevs - but HXJ's info is very interesting. Look at Regulation 66 of the EFLs Rules. I presume because only small fry have gone to date most players haven't spent long in limbo and have been allowed to go on frees. Better players with higher values, could be worth lawyers getting involved.

That was gonna be my next place to look.

That HXJ bloke (blokess), he’s not wrong y’know!

[AnotherDerbyFan]

3 hours ago, Monkeh said:

It's just a puff piece,

The Middlesborough thing keeps being brought up as if it's come about last minute,

But it's been ongoing since 18/19 and Derby keep kicking the can down the road and now crying foul about it,

If it had been dealt with like if Derby accepted their punishment last season and took their 5 point deduction instead of appealing 4 or 5 times

None of this will be happening,

It's a situation of Derby's own making and I have little sympathy for them, only for the fans

 

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.

[BTRFTG]

32 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

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.

Not withstanding the lack of non-impaired accounts for all entities, if you break down the bullets in your post, sadly for you, as a fan the reality is Boro have been proved correct on all counts.

Lest not forget the sale also gave screen for MSD to loan funds to be used as cashflow. Maybe you know as it's not published elsewhere, but it's assumed MSD became involved as they were planning to take over by buying out Morris but post loan they got cold feet. Why was that? What changed their mind?

Edited January 21, 2022 by BTRFTG

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

The impact on a player is clearly where their personal valuation differs from that placed on them by the EFL. Say in the case of Knight his agent (illegal but happens all the time,) tells clubs he knows to be interested and in whom his client is interested to bid £1 for his client. Although the EFL value him much higher surely such offers could form the basis of a market valuation? If the EFL aren't paying the player and there's no 'consideration' I don't understand what right they'd have to constrain his ability to work?

I think you need to show an actual restraint for there to be a case, plus I suspect that in all cases it is cheaper to pay a sum to the EFL than fight matters through the courts.  After all players and, more importantly, agents need to get paid!

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

presume because only small fry have gone to date most players haven't spent long in limbo and have been allowed to go on frees.

The usual position is that before being expelled, rather than entering liquidation, the club has ceased paying wages for long enough for the employment contracts to be treated as broken.  Where that happens the player will become a free agent. 

However with Derby it is possible that January wages are paid in full on 31 January, and the club enters liquidation in the middle of February and is then immediately expelled.  At that point it is unlikely that there are any unpaid wages. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Hxj

[BTRFTG]

1 minute ago, Hxj said:

I think you need to show an actual restraint for there to be a case, plus I suspect that in all cases it is cheaper to pay a sum to the EFL than fight matters through the courts.  After all players and, more importantly, agents need to get paid!

I get that for lower league but when it comes to multi-million pound players I wouldn't be so sure.

Doubtless the EFL claim they have a 'contract' with each player via whatever was in the annulled contract but that being the case what's the 'consideration' from EFL to player? Ditto in respect of acceptance and intention. I don't think it would take much to argue that any clause binding the player to the EFL in case of a contracting club losing membership was never intended to be applied - " why would I have signed for a club I thought was going to go bust? Had I known that might happen I wouldn't have signed, thus contend I didn't accept being under the control of the EFL as there was never an intention for that to happen?"

[BTRFTG]

3 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The usual position is that before being expelled, rather than entering liquidation, the club has ceased paying wages for long enough for the employment contracts to be treated as broken.  Where that happens the player will become a free agent. 

However with Derby it is possible that January wages are paid in full on 31 January, and the club enters liquidation in the middle of February and is then immediately expelled.  At that point it is unlikely that there are any unpaid wages. 

More good points but wouldn't that further strengthen a player's hand? One presumes the EFL owe a duty of care to those whose registrations they seek to hold for their members benefit. If a player demonstrates a club was allowed to continue operating without a realistic chance of fulfilling the contract held by the player (not difficult once the contract has been annulled,) might they not have a claim against the EFL for failure to act?

[Ska Junkie]

This 25% payment to the HMRC, surely that can't happen as it would set one hell of a precedent? Can we all claim 75% of our tax back if we're skint then?

As for the administrators, as I understand it, they are paid first so any delay on their part makes them more £££ doesn't it?

[Mr Popodopolous]

@Derby_Ram

To clarify my post the other day about accounts, phone has been going flat quickly so unable to reply as hoped.

1) Derby would have had the ability to offer submission of accounts even for internal EFL Disciplinary purposes using their amortisation method and using straight line.

I would hazard a guess that had they been compliant with both methods they would have rushed them out. Perhaps even into the public domain as well?

2) Do we know what the EFL received and when they received it prior to finally receiving numbers in August?

As all clubs are obliged to submit the prior seasons accounts and the current seasons accounts and FFP numbers at the start of March. I'm not 100% convinced that Derby did this in 2021 and as we know, no accounts=impossible to fail FFP. I have some sympathy with Couhig from this perspective.

3) When I go on about the accounts in January latterly this is a different aspect. The Agreed Decision states that the June Order(s) remain in play albeit deadlines moved. From memory it stipulates:

a) The full restated accounts for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18.

b) The (seen for the first time albeit restated) accounts for 2018/19 and 2019/20.

By 4pm on 31st January.

Of course it may have been done already or be on track for that in which case it's a non issue.

[BTRFTG]

23 minutes ago, Hxj said:

However with Derby it is possible that January wages are paid in full on 31 January, and the club enters liquidation in the middle of February and is then immediately expelled.  At that point it is unlikely that there are any unpaid wages. 

One assumes players are paid in arrears, such unless there's extraordinary payment the day prior to liquidation there might be an element of unpaid wages.

There's also the intriguing possibility of what might happen if, pre-liquidation, players claim constructive dismissal owing to their employer's conduct? In normal circumstance there would be little point given the employer would go bust, but there's also an onus on the employee to mitigate the employer's potential losses (even in insolvency,) and how might they do that if not being able to play elsewhere owing to a 3rd party preventing them from so doing?

Edited January 21, 2022 by BTRFTG

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

One assumes players are paid in arrears, such unless there's extraordinary payment the day prior to liquidation there might be an element of unpaid wages.

There's also the intriguing possibility of what might happen if, pre-liquidation, players claim constructive dismissal owing to their employer's conduct? In normal circumstance there would be little point given the employer would go bust, but there's also an onus on the employee to mitigate the employer's potential losses (even in insolvency,) and how might they do that if not being able to play elsewhere owing to a 3rd party preventing them from so doing?

I wonder how contract bonuses, etc are treated, e.g. annual bonus?

[BTRFTG]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

I wonder how contract bonuses, etc are treated, e.g. annual bonus?

I'd imagine they fall on fixed dates or at fixed performance targets and if they aren't hit pre liquidation they'll be lost given they never were crystalised.

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

I'd imagine they fall on fixed dates or at fixed performance targets and if they aren't hit pre liquidation they'll be lost given they never were crystalised.

Which if the EFL then held your registration, wanted a fee, etc….would seem a bit unfair.  Unless they paid wgat was due out if any fee???