Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County


havanatopia

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, downendcity said:

You'd think so, as Pride Park's "market" is £80m, don't you know!

It must be so, as Mel Morris's independent valuer said so.:whistle2:

I know you say this part in jest but DRC was the method for the stadium valuations across the board for the teams selling them, used by both Derby and the EFL valuers, and accepted by the EFL and commissions. Morally bankrupt and caused more problems in the long run; but a genuine loophole spotted and gambled on.

9 hours ago, chinapig said:

@Derby_Ram, who seems to have very good sources, says above that it won't be the council buying the stadium so this may be academic.

If one of the two parties don't get the purchase over the line then I'd be shocked if the council don't re-look at it. However if it gets to that stage there'd be bigger challenges than just questioning the use of the publics money and I'd seriously expect liquidation to be the likely outcome.

4 hours ago, downendcity said:

It wasn’t that Derby could not pay the taxman, but that they chose not to pay the taxman so they could afford to maintain a challenge for promotion.

 

Cracking post and feels nit-picking to highlight this bit but its a bit that bugs me and a lot of Derby fans - not what you've said specifically but a bit about MM that doesn't get understood fully - and irks me most about his behaviour.

Not paying the taxman wasn't to maintain a challenge for promotion. He could (and did) do both previously. It was done when he realised the game was up, the gamble on promotion failed, and the last throw of the dice to escape FFP had been used. 

He's still not short of cash, could pay all of the debts and still comfortably sit on any rich list, but when the last gamble at promotion failed and he had no other loopholes as he'd already sold the ground he cut funding. 

I'd still rather not be in the position, but, if he'd used his money to gamble on promotion and then when the last bid before FFP caught up with him he took the points penalty on the chin, still paid his bills, and not put the club in admin I'd still have an element of respect for him. Instead he took the cowards way out and stopped paying bills. An absolute ****.

So its not that HMRC weren't paid to fund a promotion bid but instead they weren't paid when he couldn't skirt the rules any further.

  • Like 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:.

Not paying the taxman wasn't to maintain a challenge for promotion. He could (and did) do both previously. It was done when he realised the game was up, the gamble on promotion failed, and the last throw of the dice to escape FFP had been used. 

He's still not short of cash, could pay all of the debts and still comfortably sit on any rich list, but when the last gamble at promotion failed and he had no other loopholes as he'd already sold the ground he cut funding. 

I'd still rather not be in the position, but, if he'd used his money to gamble on promotion and then when the last bid before FFP caught up with him he took the points penalty on the chin, still paid his bills, and not put the club in admin I'd still have an element of respect for him. Instead he took the cowards way out and stopped paying bills. An absolute ****.

So its not that HMRC weren't paid to fund a promotion bid but instead they weren't paid when he couldn't skirt the rules any further.

Yep, a calculated decision to be a complete ****….far beyond failure to meet FFP rules.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/05/2022 at 21:13, Mr Popodopolous said:

The Derby fan suggesting another loophole.

Posts like this harden my position. Hopefully the EFL will have put the Straight line bit in as a condition.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38855-the-administration-thread/page/1579/#comment-2341482

It was put in the Nov 2021 agreed decision. Then the new EFL requirement to use straight-line was announced in Feb 2022.

22 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Just on the Pride Park bits, my understanding on a few aspects based on reading up.

1) Derby City Council would borrow the money.

2) Councils can borrow at lower rates seemingly, saw 2.8% mentioned somewhere.

3) The rent would be tied to the interest payments. Think the EFL need to substitute in for FFP purposes a paper market rent, perhaps based on  the original Fair Value?

4) FFP aside, think when such a deal occurred with Plymouth, the rental was an annual yield of 8.5%. A £20m purchase means £1.7m rent in simple terms.

5) I would also argue that there is a case for inflation linked rent to protect the investment for the council. 

6) Going back to the Plymouth deal again, the sale price back to the club after a few years of rent was a % greater than the purchase price. Cannot remember, but seemed not to be any discounting for rent.

Council could actually do okay out of it if on strictly commercial and arms length terms.

Reconsolidation of stadium ownership into the Football group is also unacceptable any time soon. A section of the Agreed Decision should give the EFL grounds for pushback

None of this really matters as it won't be he council.

  1. yes
  2. yes
  3. Doesn't need to be fair value when they aren't related parties
  4. 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.
  5. See above.
  6. Council bought it for £1.6m in 2011, then sold it for £1.7m in 2016
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

It was put in the Nov 2021 agreed decision. Then the new EFL requirement to use straight-line was announced in Feb 2022.

Not altogether sure I follow- does this make a tangible difference?

My point is that it would be unacceptable probably from a P&S perspective. Right outcome, if questionable or uneven methodology at times. Membership agreement needs to be quite hardline. Anything else would be a failure of governance.

3 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

None of this really matters as it won't be he council.

  1. yes
  2. yes
  3. Doesn't need to be fair value when they aren't related parties
  4. 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.
  5. See above.
  6. Council bought it for £1.6m in 2011, then sold it for £1.7m in 2016

It may well prove academic yes.

  1. Agreed
  2. Agreed- although what of the bit about not being able to borrow for yield?
  3. The P&S regs would say something different I expect- I am speaking not of the actual amount paid but the fair value amount substituted in for P&S purposes...it's a paper amount different to the actual amount between A N Other and Derby. Remember too that there are and were rental amounts due from Club DCFC and Stadia DCFC as part of the deal/approval, not just the club itself as per IDC 1. Something that gets zero coverage I must say- I recall many were confident that it was the CLUB accounts in isolation that were the relevant factor for P&S regs yet from 2016/17 onwards they were incorrect. Some quite well informed posters seemed to dismiss use of the consolidated accounts in past threads on the FFP issues- these would include rental amounts from Club and Stadia DCFC, whereas the club accounts in isolation would solely include the club rental of £1.1m per year.
  4. We have significant cost of living issues now- the optics are rather poor for anything substantially below.
  5. Again- optics.
  6. Yes, there must have been some formula...based on say a £24m purchase price to take account of MSD and Gibson, a resale at £25.5m would be a simple extrapolation.

Something else I have observed, when discussing Business Plans etc your fans or some of them seem to post in a bit of a tunnel vision, ie the impact on Derby- agreement between EFL and Derby, as if it exists in a bubble. Ghost of Clough seemed to gloss over this part and that is a surprise that he glossed over it.

I digress, interested in the thoughts of yourself and @Derby_Ram on these snippet that I post periodically...

Quote

 However, the fact remains that even with the requirement to meet the minimum dividend to unsecured creditors any Club taking insolvency action will be released from significant amounts of debt whilst all other clubs continue to honour their ongoing commitments. An ongoing embargo restriction as part of a monitored business plan seeks to balance the interests of all members of the League and the integrity of its competitions.

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/efl-response-to-ramstrust/

I completely agree with the policy fwiw. Totally- but i sounds like it is not quite as simple as e.g. a Business Plan arranged to keep Derby solvent in a vacuum.

Quote

* The EFL would need to see the details. They would then review the embargo situation accordingly. For the remainder of this season and for the next 2 seasons, the club will need to work within an agreed Business Plan – which includes the EFL approving all player registrations during that period. If the preferred bidder proposal is 35p in £1 to creditors over a 3 year period (rather than 25p in the £1 to unsecured creditors now), the Business Plan and EFL monitoring will cover the next 3 seasons.

Quote

* The consequences of a Club going into administration is twofold.  First, the 12-point deduction is applied.  Second, the terms of the Insolvency Policy then apply – which includes adherence to an agreed business plan that places restrictions on future player signings.  This is to ensure that the Club is operating in accordance with an agreed business plan on exit.

* This is to avoid clubs gaining a competitive advantage by going to into administration, wiping out debts and harming the integrity of the competition.

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/dcfc-supporters-groups-meet-efl/

I am completely comfortable with this. Completely- wiping out debts and gaining some sort of competitive headstart is of course unacceptable- 2 year Business Plan or 3 if 35%, yep totally. Given that the EFL Insolvency Policy as a whole isn't in the public domain I'd suggest it gives them a certain amount of freedom- the only bits that are in the public domain are a) The -12 for administration and b) Indirectly via journos, the -15 if the minimum unsecured creditors not paid 25p in the £ or 35p in the £ in 3 years...so fans of Derby who say they deserve no further punishment are perhaps not thinking through the advantages that can be gained via Insolvency.

Therefore the logical answer- to me- is that the EFL Business Plan for 2 or if applicable 3 years, is or should be designed to negate that advantage.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I am completely comfortable with this. Completely- wiping out debts and gaining some sort of competitive headstart is of course unacceptable- 2 year Business Plan or 3 if 35%, yep totally. Given that the EFL Insolvency Policy as a whole isn't in the public domain I'd suggest it gives them a certain amount of freedom- the only bits that are in the public domain are a) The -12 for administration and b) Indirectly via journos, the -15 if the minimum unsecured creditors not paid 25p in the £ or 35p in the £ in 3 years...so fans of Derby who say they deserve no further punishment are perhaps not thinking through the advantages that can be gained via Insolvency.

Therefore the logical answer- to me- is that the EFL Business Plan for 2 or if applicable 3 years, is or should be designed to negate that advantage.

I guess it comes down to how you interpret things. I don't see that sticking to an agreed business plan that keeps your spending at sensible levels as a punishment. Being a sustainable club is something I'd happily aspire to.

Some fans would see it as punishment no doubt, I wouldn't.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:

I guess it comes down to how you interpret things. I don't see that sticking to an agreed business plan that keeps your spending at sensible levels as a punishment. Being a sustainable club is something I'd happily aspire to.

Some fans would see it as punishment no doubt, I wouldn't.

Thanks 

That's a fair answer and covers the bit that I neglected to mention. A sustainable Business Plan actually benefits a club, especially on exiting Insolvency.

I also think it's as I say fair to factor in the advantages gained from significant debt reduction in this too.

The League and football probably wouldn't look good if a club wiped 2/3 of HMRC but also unsecured debt especially with the former being at such levels and could spend with relative freedom under a new owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the takeover does go through the one thing I will say is its probably the best year for us for a business plan to kick in. So many clubs with financial pressures and so many players out of contract you really don't need to be chucking transfer fees and big wages around to be have a good chance to be competitive next season

Also in our favour you have the WR impact. Give a player the choice of 2 clubs in the third tier of football with everything else equal but you can play for manager x or Rooney then it is a pull.

Still relies on recruitment being strong which isn't something  we've excelled at; but given where we are it's not a bad time to be going through this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derby_Ram said:

Also in our favour you have the WR impact. Give a player the choice of 2 clubs in the third tier of football with everything else equal but you can play for manager x or Rooney then it is a pull.

...or Joey Barton

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to a Business Plan, I'd propose that the following is fair- factoring in the monitored Embargo too:

*New signings or renewal of existing players out of contract not exceeding £6k per week for a player. Whether for the full 2-3 years, dunno.

*No transfer fees payable for new signings.

 *No signing on fees payable or at best to be included in the £6k per week cap.

*No or limited loan fees.

*Agents fees to be capped at a % of the player remuneration.

Whether for Year 1 only or the full period who knows, perhaps open to review as and when. You could make a case for the latter given the Embargo is attached to the monitored business plan.

I think this would balance between the needs of Derby, the rest of the League and the integrity of it all.

Existing players wise, example. Two who will need their contact renewing to stay.

Lawrence (arguments sake) on £20k per week. Has to be negotiated down to £6k per week or Derby lose him.

Davies (arguments sake) on £5k per week. Renewal of him on existing or even slightly higher terms falls within the agreed parameters.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

If the takeover does go through the one thing I will say is its probably the best year for us for a business plan to kick in. So many clubs with financial pressures and so many players out of contract you really don't need to be chucking transfer fees and big wages around to be have a good chance to be competitive next season

Also in our favour you have the WR impact. Give a player the choice of 2 clubs in the third tier of football with everything else equal but you can play for manager x or Rooney then it is a pull.

Still relies on recruitment being strong which isn't something  we've excelled at; but given where we are it's not a bad time to be going through this.

If I was a player signing on that basis I would need some guarantee (impossible, I know) that he would still be there after Christmas. I suspect Derby fans will be hoping Everton have a good start to next season, otherwise the pull 'home' may be too much to turn town for Wayne a second time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

Cat out the bag with the Athletic reporting that it's a local property firm - Clowes Development - close to buying the ground and lease to CK.

This would genuinely be a stunning result for us if they get it complete.

Oh dear - Derbyshire property firm denies it is buying Pride Park Stadium - Derbyshire Live (derbytelegraph.co.uk)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:

Let's see how it plays out. I'm still confident ?

You would know better than me but why would they rent on generous terms? A commercial deal would presumably mean making a profit within a reasonable period.

Or are the owners life long Derby fans? You know, like Mel Morris.?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hxj said:

No doubt it will be imminent!

I've posted enough to hopefully make you know I've been cynical throughout this. I don't think we'll be pushing the 31st deadline.

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Or are the owners life long Derby fans? You know, like Mel Morris.?

Dave is. Not seen him at Pride Park but plenty of times away from home. Morris' support seemed to begin when he took a financial stake 

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Could be a personal purchase rather than through the business. The owner is loaded. 

Possible. He's involved one way or the other.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:

I've posted enough to hopefully make you know I've been cynical throughout this. I don't think we'll be pushing the 31st deadline.

Dave is. Not seen him at Pride Park but plenty of times away from home. Morris' support seemed to begin when he took a financial stake 

Possible. He's involved one way or the other.

A personal rather than commercial purchase would explain the alleged generous rental terms certainly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that Rovers fan claiming thy'd be in the Prem within five years? https://www.forestforum.co.uk/threads/44511-The-demise-of-Wayne-Rooney-s-D***y-County-(in-League-One)/page1205

Derby have fans like that too....

The comments on this are a fantastic read, they're winning the PL within 3 years after back to back promotions! Rams being the most passionate fans in the world!
PL winners in 2025! https://twitter.com/cskirchner/statu...ZAXZx7f9g&s=19

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that Gellaw Newco 202- the stadium company- have released their accounts albeit with very limited disclosures.

Zero rent. Now personally I'm not bothered if it is included within FFP/P&S transactions if it doesn't appear in that bit but it's pretty irregular set against all of the other stadium sale and leasebacks in an FFP context and actually rent receivable should be a thing.

Plus, it states that the stadium at the balance sheet date- no material change in perceived valuation, still £81m or thereabouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't bite but having a quick browse- some very chippy individuals on DCFCFans.

"Conspired to do to our club"- what a whiner! It's funny really, dunno where to begin with some of them but we knew that already.

One or two of them are complaining too about ongoing punishment or the risk therein- plus the possibility of unequal treatment. Well guess what, their case has been a) A unique combination of P&S AND administration, b) The largest debt pile in particular to HMRC of clubs who have hit the wall and c) The only club not to release accounts for 3 years.

Unique actions deserve unique solutions,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.thumb.png.0ccee5697009d74fd1c882634e0f4d77.png

Gotta laugh at some of the idiots.

Unlikely SL will get bored of it- stadium does much more than just football, as Pride Park frankly can too- underutilised ground if anything in that respect. As in good commercial revenue but likely could do more. Here? Great gig on Thursday night- never say never of course though, we are at risk as are many clubs if the owner no longer wishes to fund them or cannot fund them,

If I'm a moron, what does that make some- by no means all of them but some of them absolutely- of the howlers at the moon in certain contexts who inhabit that forum- they were so ignorant and probably in a lot of cases willfully so about the FFP issues that for all people say fans don't deserve it etc, they were deserving in the extreme as to what has happened to Derby Some who should know better still peddle the conspiracy line or the unfair/incorrect treatment line- it's amusing to see but actually incredible at the same time.

image.thumb.png.9af491da53c598afbc046b36a2e8c39f.png

Don't necessarily agree with the tax policy of SL- but the share conversion is merely what takes for ALL clubs, the equity bit- from lower to upper loss limit. It gives us no further advantage, in fact I assume that Derby have done or do the same. £15m in a 3 year period without=£39m with or anything in between- that's all it is.

They're coming into survival- as I always assumed they would, Derby but the EFL business plan won't allow extravagant expenditure- they should also read this bit again...I am sure that the indicative figures which formed the basis of the Agreed Decision were and have been accurate- if they aren't however, then I am sure the EFL will take a view.

For them to hit out at others for poor analysis and takes though is quite funny given the tidal wave of sheeeite on their forum in respect of these issues from the moment the Pride Park sale news emerged over 3 years ago via the charges, appeal, restatement, and through Professional Standing to the end point of the final Agreed Decision.

image.png.1b334aae213f5cc4f0b5fc11f20fcc05.png

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/dcfc-supporters-groups-meet-efl/

From mid Feb 2022 or so but do the EFL actually have the bona fide, restated accounts for the last 6 years? Only reason I ask is because the EFL Embargo Service has not yet removed a couple of them which should happen as soon as the accounts are in.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...