Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County


havanatopia

Recommended Posts

Some funny posts on their forum and Twitter...how whiny and entitled are a significant albeit vocal minority of their fanbase btw!?

Exhibit A.

As for the forum- one of them suggests perhaps that the proceeds for the Chelsea sale- due for charity , well they wouldn't mind a slice of that.

In fairness and for balance, a poster on there did have the temerity to point out that the EFL is about the 72 not just one and Derby5hire also pointed out why the money issue might attract interest.

Plus from the forum.

image.thumb.png.9af74322b3484440cfaa411917368b66.png

*best Basil Fawlty impression- Basil Fawlty Rick Parry on Derby!

Quote

Oh, I see, it's all my fault, is it? Oh, of course, there I was, thinking it was the fault of Mel Morris for stopping paying the bills, trying to evade FFP and not publishing accounts, or Quantuma's fault because they spent some valuable time and money on pointless points appeals pissing the executive and other 71 clubs off in the process, or Smith Cooper's fault for signing off on an ultimately non permitted accounting policy and all the time it was MY fault. Oh, it's so obvious now."

Taken from The Builders when he lost his door.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Some funny posts on their forum and Twitter...how whiny and entitled are a significant albeit vocal minority of their fanbase btw!?

Exhibit A.

As for the forum- one of them suggests perhaps that the proceeds for the Chelsea sale- due for charity , well they wouldn't mind a slice of that.

In fairness and for balance, a poster on there did have the temerity to point out that the EFL is about the 72 not just one and Derby5hire also pointed out why the money issue might attract interest.

 

I see by the way that the Rams Trust has welcomed the EFL intervention, which presumably makes them traitors to the cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I can't find it at present but think the EFL issued a few years back one of their enhanced guidance notes (they've many,) which filled in the gaps left by badly worded policy re administration events.

I seem to recall for administration this entailed an amended procedure and timeline from the stated expulsion process designed for malpractice (the general regs assumed clubs heading for insolvency would do the decent thing and resign.) I think in administration an additional prior notice to the formal expulsion notice is issued but it has a similar effect, namely that it isn't a suspension of the threat to remove membership, rather membership is revoked immediately but not ratified within a given timeframe (as would be the case in explusion.) The change sounded moot but there were technical reasons for it working that way round and they seemed to make sense at the time. For example, club officials have no authority to act in any capacity, that having been passed to the administrators, such they couldn't stand for EFL election or continue to sit on EFL voting committees whilst administration remained active. It eliminated any risk that clubs might seek to use marginal voting influence to their own advantage, not the good of the game. Administrators couldn't stand or vote on clubs behalf as, de facto, they're independent and not EFL members, a sort of Catch 22. I think there was also something about clubs/administrators not having automatic rights to payment schedules, that these moved to the discretion of the EFL. Monies would still be payable through the administration period(and were where administrators were playing ball,) though the EFL could step in and manage themselves such they would be able to ensure the football side hierarchy of payment never lost out. Sounded wholly contrary to common law but that's football and association membership for you.

Would be good if you could find that.

You're right I think that the Joint Admins don't have quite the same status as a director. I think if you read the Regs then technically a Joint Admin should have to satisfy the Owners and Directors test. They act as though they are directors, and so are caught by the test. Yet we never hear anything to suggest they have been asked to satisfy the test (although I doubt they would fail), and so it is implied that the EFL are satisfied somehow that they actually aren't quite equivalent to a director. Yet, as you point out, the directors no longer have authority to act as such - because some of their powers are handed over to the Joint Admins under normal insolvency rules. It is an odd situation...but does it create something more than the Notice and related suspension process that I outlined in my earlier post?

I think you/the EFL/everyone needs to be clear that membership of the EFL is only conferred by the holding of a share in The Football League Limited. Owning a share is binary, you either own it or you don't. It doesn't really allow for ""..membership [being] revoked immediately but not ratified within a given timeframe". You can suspend or change certain rights and powers granted by that share, but ultimately we'd all know if Debry had been forced to sell their share in the The Football League Limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Would be good if you could find that.

You're right I think that the Joint Admins don't have quite the same status as a director. I think if you read the Regs then technically a Joint Admin should have to satisfy the Owners and Directors test. They act as though they are directors, and so are caught by the test. Yet we never hear anything to suggest they have been asked to satisfy the test (although I doubt they would fail), and so it is implied that the EFL are satisfied somehow that they actually aren't quite equivalent to a director. Yet, as you point out, the directors no longer have authority to act as such - because some of their powers are handed over to the Joint Admins under normal insolvency rules. It is an odd situation...but does it create something more than the Notice and related suspension process that I outlined in my earlier post?

I think you/the EFL/everyone needs to be clear that membership of the EFL is only conferred by the holding of a share in The Football League Limited. Owning a share is binary, you either own it or you don't. It doesn't really allow for ""..membership [being] revoked immediately but not ratified within a given timeframe". You can suspend or change certain rights and powers granted by that share, but ultimately we'd all know if Debry had been forced to sell their share in the The Football League Limited.

Understand where you are coming from but I believe the EFL view membership as somewhat more than simply holding a (largely symbolic) share. Recall one can't gift or pass the share to anyone (that requires EFL approval,) when exiting the EFL either way one has to cede the share (no choice in the matter,) and the share may be removed via the expulsion process. Ultimately Derby may have to be expelled using that process but I believe buried amongst the nebulous discretionary clauses the EFL love, that once in administration one's membership (though not technically share at that point,) is removed.

From yesterday's statement I'm not sure the EFL might think Q 'fit and proper' but that's moot given, if I remember correctly, Q will have no power or influence within the EFL membership. Consider also the extraordinary powers the EFL exerted yesterday, setting mandatory constraints on how the administrators MUST act. Wouldn't happen elsewhere in business but I think they are able to do so under the membership powers (i.e. if you don't like it you don't have to be a member of this group.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Nixon:

 

71 other members have the right to stick their noses in especially where competition and finances are involved, the members need to know if any rules are being broken and what punishment for said breaches

Nixon is wrong

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

8 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

71 other members have the right to stick their noses in especially where competition and finances are involved, the members need to know if any rules are being broken and what punishment for said breaches

Nixon is wrong

Absolutely . The rumours they may not have to pay the full tax bill. when smaller clubs have been wound up for less? 
All other Clubs that compete in the same competition have the right to know that all Clubs are treated exactly the same.

  • Like 3
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hereford United has been wound up by a High Court judge.
The winding-up petition was brought by HM Revenue and Customs, which is thought to be owed £116,000.

Southend United have settled tax debts worth £493,931, with a winding-up petition against the League Two club dismissed in the High Court.

Macclesfield Town Football Club has been wound up in the High Court in relation to debts 
The application for a winding up order came from HMRC, with the football club understood to owe close to £190,000 in taxes.

Southend have paid their tax debt and a winding-up petition against them has been dismissed.
The League Two club had been allowed more time to pay a debt of £493,991 to HM Revenue and Customs at an adjourned hearing in September.

The fact that the HMRC have let the debt get to around £30m is a disgrace. By all means give them years to pay, but to let them off would give a massively unfair advantage to Derby. Even if it's an advantage they have squandered.

 

  • Like 14
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goitta say the more I read of their forum and social media, the more I wouldn't care if Derby went pop- a high ratio of ignorant, arrogant bellends it would seem- we know that already but it is always good to have it reaffirmed. Especially in light of the mooted HMRC discount.

OTOH some numbers- from their forum, good poster-, Ghost of Clough with the numbers as per easy enough to work out the maths from here. Helpfully it's been rounded for easy calculation.

Quote

Creditors are not far off these figures:
HMRC - £36m
MSD - £24m
Transfer Fees - £8.4m
Administrators - £3.5m (estimate)
Unsecured Creditors - £3m

35% to unsecured creditors (£1m), whatever was agreed with HMRC (I'm guessing at 50% = £18m), and 100% of the rest.
£55m for the lot. 
The 25% option would knock just £300k off the total. Doesn't make sense to do that when you can spread the payments out over 3 years instead.

WITHOUT stadium, 35% in 3 years to the unsecured let's say would mean...

  1. HMRC- £12.6m
  2. Transfer fees- £8.4m
  3. Admin- £3.5m (estimate)
  4. Unsecured- £1.05m

Making a total sans stadium of £25.55m- although Nixon has gone on before about £21.4m IIRC. This also in both calculations assumes no reduction in Transfer fees or Admin.

25% up front would be...

  1. HMRC- £9m
  2. Transfer fees- £8.4m
  3. Admin- £3.5m (estimate)
  4. Unsecured- £0.75m

£21.65m.

Ashley actually reportedly had a bid of £50m in the pipeline last winter albeit including stadium when the HMRC, MSD and admin fees would've been lower. That would comfortably have covered the minumum and the stadium with no risk of points deductions- and a bit more than the minimum as well.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This aspect has always intrigued me - taken from the Derby Fans forum.

It still baffles me as to how Mel Morris was able to buy a stadium for £80m, but never transfer any funds to the club at all - as far as I understand it was simply an accounting transaction, but in reality we received no money and lost a stadium. We know he's been a bit underhand for a long time as our 'custodian' but I want all the skeletons. 

Is the answer that MM was/is owed millions by the football club as a result of his numerous loans, and has taken the stadium in part-payment (I understand the nuances of separating the stadium from the football club in case of future financial problems) or is there another reason(s)? 

Edited by PHILINFRANCE
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good! Although Nixon so pinch of salt? I trust him on FFP matters for sure but dunno about the other stuff.

image.thumb.png.96e2cbb27e3e0408aaae29d8aa323765.png

Summary posted on the Derby forum of the Patreon point...I wondered when clubs would start to turn the screw a bit and no place in League Two if it fails is also sticking to the integrity of the system.

I don't want Derby to go under- and I still stick to my bet of no liquidation- but at the same time there should be no short cuts or special favours.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Good! Although Nixon so pinch of salt? I trust him on FFP matters for sure but dunno about the other stuff.

image.thumb.png.96e2cbb27e3e0408aaae29d8aa323765.png

Summary posted on the Derby forum of the Patreon point...I wondered when clubs would start to turn the screw a bit and no place in League Two if it fails is also sticking to the integrity of the system.

They're trying to work out which individual clubs are angry. It doesn't seem to occur to them that it might be all 71, having no doubt discussed at the AGM.

Nor does it occur to them that clubs may be angry that Derby are getting special treatment from HMRC that the rest of them don't get.

  • Like 2
  • Flames 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

This aspect has always intrigued me - taken from the Derby Fans forum.

It still baffles me as to how Mel Morris was able to buy a stadium for £80m, but never transfer any funds to the club at all - as far as I understand it was simply an accounting transaction, but in reality we received no money and lost a stadium. We know he's been a bit underhand for a long time as our 'custodian' but I want all the skeletons. 

Is the answer that MM was/is owed millions by the football club as a result of his numerous loans, and has taken the stadium in part-payment (I understand the nuances of separating the stadium from the football club in case of future financial problems) or is there another reason(s)? 

That was what made the stadium "sale" so dodgy, as as ffp was concerned.

As no actual money changed hands, it was, as you say, a paper transaction. This in turn meant that the sale was based not on an open market transaction, but what is termed in the mortgage industry a desk valuation. With no real market comparables it was wide open for the "professional and independent" valuation to be manipulated.

Surprise, surprise Pride Park was valued at just the figure necessary to duck a ffp breach!

The EFL were naively duped by Morris (when he had them on a string), in the same way as are referees by play acting and cheating players.

Where's the £80m valuation now?

:grr:

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

4 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

This aspect has always intrigued me - taken from the Derby Fans forum.

It still baffles me as to how Mel Morris was able to buy a stadium for £80m, but never transfer any funds to the club at all - as far as I understand it was simply an accounting transaction, but in reality we received no money and lost a stadium. We know he's been a bit underhand for a long time as our 'custodian' but I want all the skeletons. 

Is the answer that MM was/is owed millions by the football club as a result of his numerous loans, and has taken the stadium in part-payment (I understand the nuances of separating the stadium from the football club in case of future financial problems) or is there another reason(s)? 

Simply an FFP / P&S transaction.

The football club show a profit (difference between on book and inflated sale,) that year,  the club's holding company loaned the money (sic) to the stadium company to 'buy' the stadium such as they were all under the same control it's a circular transaction. In theory the club's holding company is owed but added value was never there in the first place. 

Imagine selling a fine bottle of wine to your better half for quadruple it's market value, paid for with monies you've loaned. From a household perspective how much wealthier are you?

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

That was what made the stadium "sale" so dodgy, as as ffp was concerned.

As no actual money changed hands, it was, as you say, a paper transaction. This in turn meant that the sale was based not on an open market transaction, but what is termed in the mortgage industry a desk valuation. With no real market comparables it was wide open for the "professional and independent" valuation to be manipulated.

Surprise, surprise Pride Park was valued at just the figure necessary to duck a ffp breach!

The EFL were naively duped by Morris (when he had them on a string), in the same way as are referees by play acting and cheating players.

Where's the £80m valuation now?

:grr:

If you care to scroll back many pages I've explained several times in detail as to how the £81m figure was derived. In brief, it wasn't a market value as most imagine , rather a Depreciated Replacement Cost assessment (that wholly different from any mortgage based assessment.) DRCs are used for unusual, bespoke assets - visit the RICS website where they've dozens of technical papers explaining where these are appropriate and how they function. It's basically how much would it cost to rebuild what I've got? Problem being nobody ever bothers to rebuild as was, never happens as rather you'd always go for something more modern. It works for accounting and insurance purposes and also, as Morris exploited, to get around EFL FFP/P&S policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

If you care to scroll back many pages I've explained several times in detail as to how the £81m figure was derived. In brief, it wasn't a market value as most imagine , rather a Depreciated Replacement Cost assessment (that wholly different from any mortgage based assessment.) DRCs are used for unusual, bespoke assets - visit the RICS website where they've dozens of technical papers explaining where these are appropriate and how they function. It's basically how much would it cost to rebuild what I've got? Problem being nobody ever bothers to rebuild as was, never happens as rather you'd always go for something more modern. It works for accounting and insurance purposes and also, as Morris exploited, to get around EFL FFP/P&S policy.

In fact, though I undoubtedly agree with the thrust of your post, there was some puzzlement there too- was the "Profits method" as opposed to DRC IIRC- this was a sticking point between club and EFL.

DRC was £74.4m and for some unaccountable reason, the Profits method of £81.1m was upheld. DRC seems the only sensible method for this kinda transaction IMO.

image.png.1b7696e82b000eb900953f7c8a6f84d5.png

image.png.2e0a3701ada35da7c76e05879c4284bb.png

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/media/get/EFL Derby County Decision Document.pdf

I get the DRC method but I struggle to see how the Profits method is that reliable- feels like it is rather open to fluctuation! From IDC 1. Is a long read- 123 pages- but there are bits on it, 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Oooh! On to threats now!

I read on the tweet thread someone saying how other clubs got a tax deduction. Leeds and Bolton were mentioned. 
 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the extent of the tax avoidance here was at a time of national crisis, quite deliberately designed to utterly and unethically take advantage of a government policy to assist organizations through a difficult period. 
 

The comparison with other clubs is infuriating! If HMRC give them a break on any of that money, they better prepare themselves for the outcry. 

  • Like 4
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...