Derby County

[chinapig]

From the BBC:

Wycombe's American chairman Rob Couhig said: "Since last November, we have asked the administrators for a meeting to conduct good faith negotiations to resolve the issue between the two clubs.

"Despite repeated requests, we have never heard a word from them. Perhaps, now that the request has come from the EFL, they will finally agree to meet and try to come to a responsible commercial solution.

"As soon as I am told when and where the mediation will take place, I will fly back to the UK and personally attend."

So the Administrators seem to have adopted Morris' tactic of delaying in the hope the problem would just go away. Quite how this helps the club is beyond me.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60253222

Edited February 4, 2022 by chinapig

[Monkeh]

1 minute ago, chinapig said:

From the BBC:

Wycombe's American chairman Rob Couhig said: "Since last November, we have asked the administrators for a meeting to conduct good faith negotiations to resolve the issue between the two clubs.

"Despite repeated requests, we have never heard a word from them. Perhaps, now that the request has come from the EFL, they will finally agree to meet and try to come to a responsible commercial solution.

"As soon as I am told when and where the mediation will take place, I will fly back to the UK and personally attend."

So the Administrators seem to have adopted Morris' tactic of delaying in the hope the problem would just go away. Quite how this helps the club is beyond me.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60253222

Ie stringing it out to earn as much as possible,

Mel Morris has killed Derby the administrators are his assassin 

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

The league enforce the rules that Derby and all the other clubs agreed to, they don't  manage the clubs, 

Fixed.

Mel Morris could’ve paid the debts and taken the points deductions (and relegation).  He could have negotiated with Gibson and Couhig.  It would not surprise me if Gibson seeing Derby relegated might see that as part compensation and accept a lower amount.  Morris could then trying to sell the club and ground as a Lg1 club.  As a Lg1 club, on a sounder footing he may well have got some of his money back.

Instead, he put Derby into administration and pretty much washed his hands of it.

[HitchinRed]

39 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

That's not the leagues fault though, that is solely Derby county's fault

Agreed, but my point is that it is not the fault of any other Non Football Creditor either, and yet they are being asked to take more of the pain, whilst other Football Creditors are insulated to a far greater extent.

[Monkeh]

2 minutes ago, HitchinRed said:

Agreed, but my point is that it is not the fault of any other Non Football Creditor either, and yet they are being asked to take more of the pain, whilst other Football Creditors are insulated to a far greater extent.

And I explained why,

It's not the leagues fault the league shouldn't pay these people ether,

It's solely Derby county's fault and one man in particular Mel Morris 

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, HitchinRed said:

Agreed, but my point is that it is not the fault of any other Non Football Creditor either, and yet they are being asked to take more of the pain, whilst other Football Creditors are insulated to a far greater extent.

5 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

And I explained why,

It's not the leagues fault the league shouldn't pay these people ether,

It's solely Derby county's fault and one man in particular Mel Morris 

Comes to something when you don’t even pay the St Johns ambulance bill….and the fans whip round and pay it for you.

I guess any business providing services / goods to a football club ought to ensure their payment terms are sound, and they understand the impact of long term non-payment.  I know that’s easy to say.

[sh1t_ref_again]

if Derby leave the EFL, an alternative is just 282 miles up the road, sure the SPL could do with another 2nd rate team

[BTRFTG]

40 minutes ago, HitchinRed said:

Agreed, but my point is that it is not the fault of any other Non Football Creditor either, and yet they are being asked to take more of the pain, whilst other Football Creditors are insulated to a far greater extent.

Unless I've misunderstood 'Football Creditors' only applies so far as Derby continue to trade as a football club.  As soon as it's confirmed their expulsion from the EFL is absolute I would have thought standard insolvency priorities are the order of the day. Clearly charges are charges but with respect to registrations and transfers I'm not sure whether these may be argued as proprietary assets (i.e. when a player's registration is transferred subject to staged payments is it the case the transferer retains beneficial ownership of the asset (player) until the final payment is settled, hence may have first dibs on payouts?) All other 'football' related debt one assumes is unsecured. 

I've also assumed the majority of that owed HMRC is preferential debt, such I wouldn't have thought there would be much trickling down to unsecured level.

The clever accountants on here may also be able to clarify what happens to the holding company with the ground? I suppose MSD could seek to force it's sale to recover their loan, else Morris might pay them off personally but in the case of the latter and with minimal income but continued outgoings, wouldn't that company eventually have to be folded or asset held sold off?

Edited February 4, 2022 by BTRFTG

[Hxj]

22 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

'Football Creditors' only applies so far as Derby continue to trade as a football club.

The EFL's regulations only apply for as long as Derby County is a member.  Whether or not 'Football Creditors' actually exist in insolvency law has not yet been properly tested in Court. 

22 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Player registrations

These transfer to the EFL on any expulsion/liquidation.  Any amounts received for the onwards transfer are used to pay off any Football Creditors in the first instance.

22 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

what happens to the holding company with the ground?

The charge held by MSD is secured by the freehold and the leasehold of the ground, plus other assets.

MSD can only recover the sum owed including interest and charges.  If they receive that sum in the Administration of the football club their charge will have been met in full and Morris's company will own the stadium with no debt.  Another one of Morris's cunning plans I believe.  If the club gets liquidated they will be able to enforce the security on other assets (such as the freehold of the stadium) to the extent that the debt remains unpaid.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Hxj

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

These transfer to the EFL on any expulsion/liquidation.  Any amounts received for the onwards transfer are used to pay off any Football Creditors in the first instance.

I'm grateful you highlighted this the other week but my query related rather to the nature of the transfer contract.  Clubs account for full player value in their accounts when registrations transfer such players become the asset of the club to which they've transferred, but where payments are staged one would have expected the transfering club to include caveats within the contract to ensure they receive full payment (i.e. in case of injury the player must be insured at all times in the minimum value of any sums outstanding.) Now I don't know if outstanding sums may be drafted as 'floating charges' or whether the EFL allow a club to reclaim (at cost received to date,) the player. If they do it strikes me it could be argued such 'football' debts move to the high priority.

[Port Said Red]

I received this on email from the FSA this morning.

https://mailchi.mp/thefsa/fan-mail-govt-calls-for-derby-county-pragmatism-cumbrians-pick-up-my-club-my-shirt-initiative?e=e73f2ad03a

[Monkeh]

4 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I received this on email from the FSA this morning.

https://mailchi.mp/thefsa/fan-mail-govt-calls-for-derby-county-pragmatism-cumbrians-pick-up-my-club-my-shirt-initiative?e=e73f2ad03a

That's a come down from what the fans of been bleeding on about,

So it will now be a efl and government conspiracy against Derby soon,

And the independent body wouldn't of stopped this at Derby it was a take over the fans wanted and approved and the cheating approved and goaded about by the fans

Had this been dealt with instead of having the Billy big club mentality none if this would be happening, the fans don't deserve to lose there club but apart from a few they are as guilty as the rest

[HitchinRed]

3 hours ago, Monkeh said:

And I explained why,

It's not the leagues fault the league shouldn't pay these people ether,

It's solely Derby county's fault and one man in particular Mel Morris 

I’m not sure you have explained why Non Football Creditors should take more of the pain of a football club going into administration compared to Football Creditors.

You have simply said that it’s not the league’s fault that Derby went into administration. Well it wasn’t St John’s Ambulance’s fault either.

I haven’t suggested that the League should pay the debts for ‘these people’, I am just saying there ought to be a level playing field. 

[Monkeh]

Just now, HitchinRed said:

I’m not sure you have explained why Non Football Creditors should take more of the pain of a football club going into administration compared to Football Creditors.

You have simply said that it’s not the league’s fault that Derby went into administration. Well it wasn’t St John’s Ambulance’s fault either.

I haven’t suggested that the League should pay the debts for ‘these people’, I am just saying there ought to be a level playing field. 

you do know how administration works don't you?

Unsecured creditors are at the bottom of the list, these people you talk about are at the bottom of the list, thats not just in football, thats in insolvency law,

Whether that be the football league, Debenhams or Frank the fish monger, the unsecured creditors will always be at the bottom of the list and will always get little if anything back,

I'll also put it another way, should I pay your debts and credit cards if you are declared bankrupt? 

That is not for the football league to sort out,

[ExiledAjax]

5 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

And the independent body wouldn't of stopped this at Derby it was a take over the fans wanted and approved and the cheating approved and goaded about by the fans

The aspects of the Fan Led Review that the statement refers to are items such as Owners having to keep a business plan (strategy, financial projections, corp gov, sustainability etc. all included within that) on file with the regulator, including evidencing proof of funds to finance that plan for 3 years. This would be updated every year. This would be part of an enhanced Owner's test. Sanctions for breach would be wide-ranging and flexible, and ultimately could include the revocation of the license required to operate within the league (although this would be a last resort given the impact on fans and community). 

There would be parallel capital and liquidity requirements as well. These are already used in the financial sector and would require Clubs to work with the regulator to ensure they have adequate finances and processes in place to keep operating. Firstly, clubs would be obliged to ensure they have enough cash coming into the business, control of costs, and suitable processes and systems to ensure the sustainability of the business. Clubs would need buffers in place for shocks and unforeseen circumstances. IREF would look at clubs’ plans, conduct its own analysis and if the club plan is not credible, does not have enough liquidity, costs are too high or risk not accounted for properly, IREF would be able to demand an improvement in finances (e.g. inject some cash into the business or lower the wage bill) and ultimately have the necessary powers to force the club to do so.

At this stage these are high level goals and sketched out plans, they will require refinement and detail to tailor them to football's needs. However, I personally agree that policies like this would go a long way to ensuring that clubs to not go into insolvency as often as they do now.

It is excellent news that “The Government is now working swiftly to determine the most effective way to deliver an independent regulator, and any powers that might be needed.”

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, HitchinRed said:

I’m not sure you have explained why Non Football Creditors should take more of the pain of a football club going into administration compared to Football Creditors.

You have simply said that it’s not the league’s fault that Derby went into administration. Well it wasn’t St John’s Ambulance’s fault either.

I haven’t suggested that the League should pay the debts for ‘these people’, I am just saying there ought to be a level playing field. 

The answer in the most basic of terms is because that’s the rules of belonging to / being a member of the EFL.

They can follow the letter of the law, just that they’ll have to give up their EFL membership.

I gave a crap analogy on twitter:

Is it law that you have to wear trousers and a collar when you play at the golf club you become a member at?  No, but it is the club rules.  If you don’t wear the right clothes, you can’t play. 

[ExiledAjax]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Is it law that you have to wear trousers and a collar when you play at the golf club you become a member at?  No, but it is the club rules.  If you don’t wear the right clothes, you can’t play. 

Not too bad an analogy really. In many walks of life people and companies accept extra rules and regulation over and above "the Law" and they go along with it because they get extra benefits - in your case membership of a no doubt very fine golf club.

In Derby's case they want the extra benefit of competing within the EFL. Fine. But abide by the rules and regs that you were part of making and agreeing.

As others say, they can even continue as a football club if they don't pay the football creditors - but that will be in whichever Dog and Duck league will take them.

[HitchinRed]

26 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

you do know how administration works don't you?

Unsecured creditors are at the bottom of the list, these people you talk about are at the bottom of the list, thats not just in football, thats in insolvency law,

Whether that be the football league, Debenhams or Frank the fish monger, the unsecured creditors will always be at the bottom of the list and will always get little if anything back,

I'll also put it another way, should I pay your debts and credit cards if you are declared bankrupt? 

That is not for the football league to sort out,

I’ll try one more time…

I know how administration works.

I know that unsecured creditors are bottom of the list.

Under Insolvency Laws, Football Creditors are no different from Non Football creditors.

IMO, I do not think it’s fair that the internal rules of a closed shop league should be able to prioritise the interests of their members over other creditors, who in the eyes of the law are of equal standing.

 

[exAtyeoMax]

3 hours ago, billywedlock said:

That we are still discussing the same issues suggests that any resolution is not going to happen any time soon . Morris probably has to hand over the ground to unlock a deal. Otherwise, liquidation looks more likely by the day. Who would want the wage bill they have, even reduced as it is, in L1 anyway. Like Wimbledon, they will have to start at the 9th/10th level. At least the fans will have a few promotions over the next decade. As it stands, no one wants to pay out the 60M (excluding the ground) . Ashely is waiting for a bargain. 

What would be the benefit of MM holding on to the ground? Sell it to any new owner? 
redevelop it?

 

[BTRFTG]

6 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The aspects of the Fan Led Review that the statement refers to are items such as Owners having to keep a business plan (strategy, financial projections, corp gov, sustainability etc. all included within that) on file with the regulator, including evidencing proof of funds to finance that plan for 3 years. This would be updated every year. This would be part of an enhanced Owner's test. Sanctions for breach would be wide-ranging and flexible, and ultimately could include the revocation of the license required to operate within the league (although this would be a last resort given the impact on fans and community). 

There would be parallel capital and liquidity requirements as well. These are already used in the financial sector and would require Clubs to work with the regulator to ensure they have adequate finances and processes in place to keep operating. Firstly, clubs would be obliged to ensure they have enough cash coming into the business, control of costs, and suitable processes and systems to ensure the sustainability of the business. Clubs would need buffers in place for shocks and unforeseen circumstances. IREF would look at clubs’ plans, conduct its own analysis and if the club plan is not credible, does not have enough liquidity, costs are too high or risk not accounted for properly, IREF would be able to demand an improvement in finances (e.g. inject some cash into the business or lower the wage bill) and ultimately have the necessary powers to force the club to do so.

At this stage these are high level goals and sketched out plans, they will require refinement and detail to tailor them to football's needs. However, I personally agree that policies like this would go a long way to ensuring that clubs to not go into insolvency as often as they do now.

It is excellent news that “The Government is now working swiftly to determine the most effective way to deliver an independent regulator, and any powers that might be needed.”

It still doesn't address the fundamental problem, that being unrealistic fan expectation.

Just consider all those clubs, like our own, who without the beneficence of their owner would go bust overnight. Just suppose Mr Lansdown declared that he would no longer make loan provision to the club, a club that's been losing £750k a week for years. What might the fans or this review then do? Would we all start chipping in £50 a week to ensure we remained within whatever arbitrary limits were demanded? Would we offer to pay triple ticket prices?  Like **** would we.

If Mr Lansdown stated he would continue to support cashflow but no further capital purchases, we'd only be signing frees at the bottom of the food chain, that he'd be prepared to see us plummet through the leagues but on the upside we'd be able to demonstrate long term stability, would the fans sign-up to that? Would they erect a statue in his honour to celebrate our consolidation in The Conference whilst ensuring the balance sheet remained healthy? In your dreams would they.

If fans want a review start with getting real. Bring football back into the realms in which supporters exist and ensure there it remains. Limit excess even where that limits ambition.

The problem of reviews such as this is they're reflective of the malaise that pervades modern society. Everybody thinks they have rights. Everybody demands that they desire. Everybody is adamant somebody other than they foot the bill.

Association Football, its origins do not lie in business 

[HitchinRed]

27 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The answer in the most basic of terms is because that’s the rules of belonging to / being a member of the EFL.

They can follow the letter of the law, just that they’ll have to give up their EFL membership.

I gave a crap analogy on twitter:

Is it law that you have to wear trousers and a collar when you play at the golf club you become a member at?  No, but it is the club rules.  If you don’t wear the right clothes, you can’t play. 

Yes, I agree. This is what I said in my original post.

 

6 hours ago, HitchinRed said:

I think the reality of Administration is that there is not enough money going round. If I was running a cleaning business that was forced into liquidation because a football club couldn’t pay its bills, would I be happy will millions being paid to a Football Creditor instead? Absolutely not.

In terms of the integrity of the league - I’m not sure it shows much integrity to force smaller companies out of business in order to protect your colleagues. I would suggest it shows much more integrity to let these companies go out of business. Maybe then these owners will think more about the impact of their decisions. But then again, maybe not!

 

[Monkeh]

1 minute ago, HitchinRed said:

I’ll try one more time…

I know how administration works.

I know that unsecured creditors are bottom of the list.

Under Insolvency Laws, Football Creditors are no different from Non Football creditors.

IMO, I do not think it’s fair that the internal rules of a closed shop league should be able to prioritise the interests of their members over other creditors, who in the eyes of the law are of equal standing.

 

we aren't working under insolvency law we are working under the football league rules that all 72 clubs sign up too, I explained why those rules are in place and the knock on effect it can have by not having said rules,

You may not think it is fair but its the rules every club signs up too and agreed too, don't agree then don't join the league simple as that,

[ExiledAjax]

23 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

It still doesn't address the fundamental problem, that being unrealistic fan expectation.

Just consider all those clubs, like our own, who without the beneficence of their owner would go bust overnight. Just suppose Mr Lansdown declared that he would no longer make loan provision to the club, a club that's been losing £750k a week for years. What might the fans or this review then do? Would we all start chipping in £50 a week to ensure we remained within whatever arbitrary limits were demanded? Would we offer to pay triple ticket prices?  Like **** would we.

If Mr Lansdown stated he would continue to support cashflow but no further capital purchases, we'd only be signing frees at the bottom of the food chain, that he'd be prepared to see us plummet through the leagues but on the upside we'd be able to demonstrate long term stability, would the fans sign-up to that? Would they erect a statue in his honour to celebrate our consolidation in The Conference whilst ensuring the balance sheet remained healthy? In your dreams would they.

If fans want a review start with getting real. Bring football back into the realms in which supporters exist and ensure there it remains. Limit excess even where that limits ambition.

The problem of reviews such as this is they're reflective of the malaise that pervades modern society. Everybody thinks they have rights. Everybody demands that they desire. Everybody is adamant somebody other than they foot the bill.

Association Football, its origins do not lie in business 

I hear your arguments, and I've never said that the Review or it's recommendations are perfect. You're correct that some are idealistic, even fanciful, and that practical implication will be tough. Also, as with any change, there is the very strong possibility of unforeseen impacts that may simply bring up bigger issues in the long run.

However, I strongly believe that having an independent regulator in place will, at the very least, mean that there is a single, impartial and independent body that can provide a clear and obvious forum for the solution of those possible issues. That is preferable to what we have now which is competing bodies - the FA, the EFL, the Prem, the Clubs, fan groups, government, TV companies etc - deciding matters on an ad hoc basis. It's unwieldy, messy, political, and selfish. We can do better than this.

Let's not derail this thread any further but I am a strong believer in the underlying principles of this Review.

Edited February 4, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[semblar]

30 minutes ago, HitchinRed said:

I’ll try one more time…

I know how administration works.

I know that unsecured creditors are bottom of the list.

Under Insolvency Laws, Football Creditors are no different from Non Football creditors.

IMO, I do not think it’s fair that the internal rules of a closed shop league should be able to prioritise the interests of their members over other creditors, who in the eyes of the law are of equal standing.

 

I think the closest equivalent is something like this.

 

You declare bankruptcy. First goes the stuff on the mortgage (secured creditors) then the rest get a % under insolvency laws.  The EFL is the golf club or the gym that you owe a few hundred to, who then say "if you don't clear our whole bill you can't come and use our facilities..."

[Bristol Rob]

Just had a quick look at the Derby forum to see if I could gauge the mood of their fans, there seem to be a few distinct categories.

1. It's the EFL fault for not applying their rules consistently.

2. It's Boro's fault

3. The administrator hasn't made enough money from this yet.

4. Delirium. Possibly due to exhaustion where people have almost stopped taking the threat seriously as there is little they can do about it.

5. Anger. With everyone and everything.

Very little directed towards Wycombe (compared to Boro).

No one likes Mel. He kinda fits against all of the above.

I hope Derby find a route forward and their fans still have a club to support this season, next season and beyond.

From the outside, it appears Rooney is doing a fair job in difficult circumstances, surprised his 100k a week he was earning hasn't been questioned more, as surely that would have contributed.

 

[ExiledAjax]

8 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

From the outside, it appears Rooney is doing a fair job in difficult circumstances, surprised his 100k a week he was earning hasn't been questioned more, as surely that would have contributed.

Unbelievably, there's a report that someone has commissioned a statue of Rooney to be placed outside PP.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-wayne-rooney-statue-6601095

"It has now been revealed that a statue of Rooney has been commissioned to immortalise the ‘spirit’ that the Derby boss has shown.

“The last four months, the spirit he has shown, it’s gone throughout the team the club, the supporters, the City and all of the community,” Garry McBride, whose idea it was told BBC Radio Derby.

Rooney also revealed last week that he turned down the chance to interview for the ten [sic] vacant managerial position at former club Everton.

...

It’s [Rooney 'turning down' Everton] another thing that shows the ‘measure of the man’, according to McBride.

It is hoped that the bronze bust, which will be finished by the end of the season, will be placed at the side of Pride Park."

I cannot actually believe that this is a serious suggestion. How Rooney is coming out of this so exalted and glorified I will never understand.

Edited February 4, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[REDOXO]

15 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

Where did Wimbledon restart and Bury for that matter? The Combined counties premier league (tier 9), in Wimbledons case. North West counties division 1 in Burys (tier 10). The comparison for Derby is the Midlands football league division 1 or the united counties league, division 1, both tier 10.

Each league has a Premier division which is clearly tier 9.

Long, long way back.

I agree but those clubs were not hauling 1000s of away fans to all local games.
 

This is the first big (I use the term advisedly) club to go under.

As you use The Combined County’s as an example, how Would the equivalent of Hartley Wintney in Derbyshire cope with the angry DCFC following. It’s not feasible. 
 

The SFA put Rangers in The lowest pro division they could as at least there were some facilities. Can you imagine Rangers away at(enter random jock village here)

Unfortunately there has to be pragmatism what ever happens. The West Nottinghamshire League is where they should go but don’t expect it.
 

So I think finally DCFC will get recognized as a ‘big club’ (In appropriately small letters)

[Mr Popodopolous]

Surely a mere requirement that for Licensing approval, the club through their own endeavours must not exceed a breakeven cash position, year in year out solves or goes a long way towards solving the insolvency risk issue.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Two more lines.

In the event of liquidation, at least according to Nixon a couple of weeks back the EFL have suggested that they could start at League Two level- which would raise a lot of questions about preferential treatment.

I'd be intrigued to know how many of the other 71 clubs would approve of this.

Secondly saw this elsewhere, what do we make of this?

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13892993/filing-history

[semblar]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Two more lines.

In the event of liquidation, at least according to Nixon a couple of weeks back the EFL have suggested that they could start at League Two level- which would raise a lot of questions about preferential treatment.

I'd be intrigued to know how many of the other 71 clubs would approve of this.

Secondly saw this elsewhere, what do we make of this?

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13892993/filing-history

All in the name of Peter Wallis - sorry but I can't remember if he is a person we "know about" in relation to DCFC...