Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County


havanatopia

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Dear me, largely rambling gibberish with no substantive arguments addressing the issues just more conspiracy thinking. I am inclined to repeat my original description of posturing.

The sections on parachute payments are of course irrelevant to the case but he seems not to know that the EFL cannot unilaterally change them without Premier League agreement. That level of ignorance from a former club owner rather undermines his credibility.

As does his written English - Grade C must try harder. ?

 

3 minutes ago, Hxj said:

So given that confrontational statements are the order of the day - you've now even got the Derby Supporters' clubs demanding an apology from Morris - might be warranted but the timing is tragic - who is working in the background to try and sort this out - looks like no one - so it won't ever get sorted. 

Friday lunches really should be limited to two bottles of wine per person.

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Show Me The Money! said:

He does have a point about QPR. Same could probably be said about Villa too. If your beach FFP but get promoted you get away with it.

Qpr didn't get away with it, they were heavly fined and suffered from transfer embargo,

In fact it's only thr last 18 months that they finally recovered,

Villa will face the music if they get relegated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Show Me The Money! said:

He does have a point about QPR. Same could probably be said about Villa too. If your beach FFP but get promoted you get away with it.

Though the QPR case was under an earlier version of the regulations so the comparison doesn't hold. The current version is much stronger and was agreed by all the clubs, including Derby.

Of course both Sheff Wed and Reading have been sanctioned under the current regulations, though neither went into administration. In all 3 cases that was entirely their own fault.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chinapig said:

Though the QPR case was under an earlier version of the regulations so the comparison doesn't hold. The current version is much stronger and was agreed by all the clubs, including Derby.

Of course both Sheff Wed and Reading have been sanctioned under the current regulations, though neither went into administration. In all 3 cases that was entirely their own fault.

I’m not trying to stand up for MM at all. I just want to see the EFL having powers to stop teams getting promoted if they are breaking FFP in doing so.

 If those kinds of rules are in place already then great

…. actually thinking about it in doing that it also just highlights the unfair advantage that teams with PP have

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Kirchner having a right pop on twitter tonight.

 

This isn’t the only tweet.

Honestly, I want Derby to survive insolvency, I really do. I've been flippant about a few things today but if any of their fans are reading this then I really do offer you my sympathy. I know the ones that are really suffering aren't the millionaires but the ordinary fans of Derby. The Club has been punished for the FFP issues, and they've been punished for going into Admin, I have to say that I do hope they are relegated, but I also hope their fans have a club next season (although only so long as the EFL rules are abided by). I hope a solution is found that satisfies everyone as much as can be done.

That said, this public soap opera of 'he said, she said, you say, I say' is electric. I am trying very hard not to find the whole exchange of public statements and open letters grimly amusing. I've worked as an adviser to people with this kind of money and dear god I can only imagine the head-bashing going on in their legal teams and PR teams. I remember the number of times we used to redraft a simple press release issued by an unknown company about a change in director, and compare that to these four or five page letters seemingly fired off into the ether without even running a spellcheck...it is incredible really.

As for Kirchner coming back and sticking his oar in just as we get to lunchtime/late afternoon over this side of the Atlantic...again I repeat that people really need to consider putting down the wine list on Friday lunchtime. It is all very unbecoming.

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

Interesting stuff and I even agree with bits of it Mel Morris's views ie the bits on Parachute Payments, and the problems that the EFL have had pursuing newly promoted clubs although I question his claims last September about most having breached FFP on the way up.

All the same had the EFL said publicly in July 2019 for example that yes, they considered the Aston Villa accounts to be worthy of further scrutiny and a soft embargo while so doing- I wonder if there would have been any chance of the PL handing it back to the EFL for said further forensic analysis.

Really the FA should do FFP, Profit and Sustainability regulations are harmonised loss limits aside so it should follow clubs up and down irrespective with a consistent sanctioning regime.

I remember talk of a Jurisdictional Bridge when the Salary Cap debate was ongoing in late 2020, early 2021 but nobody discusses it anymore. Basically means that the EFL could pursue promoted clubs properly if deemed potentially in breach. That said, I accept the premise that the bulk will have exceeded £13m in the specific year of promotion but I expect that the bulk did hit the 3 year target just about, especially as promotion bonuses are excluded from FFP calculations as Mel Morris surely well knows.

The bit about exceptional items also I found of interest- especially player sales being shifted between accounting periods to help with compliance, I'm not against it entirely for example if a bid or negotiations begin in late May or late June- and conclude a few days into June or July- at the end of one and beginning of another accounting period then that's one thing and could be seen as a bit of a grey area- but as a premise and in principle it seems quite dubious to me!

I still would like him or someone on here to quantify exactly where in Middlesbrough's 2015/16 accounts this sale of a tax loss appeared- and either bolstered their revenue or helped them to swerve an FFP fine through pushing the FFP loss under £13m.

I have looked at that seasons accounts many, many times and I'm struggling to classify it. Is there something obvious I am missing?

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

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What are the FA for, if one of their key duties doesn't include regulation? Although they have been of little use for some time now...

However I'd hope that an Independent Regulator would basically apply it in this manner.

The FA has no credibility in this was Tracey Crouch's view when interviewed on the Athletic's Business of Sport podcast and/or Kieran Maguire's Price of Football podcast.

Compromised by vested interests was her view, by which I guess she may have meant the Premier League. In any event she is clearly not impressed by the FA as a governing body in general.

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

2 hours ago, Show Me The Money! said:

He does have a point about QPR. Same could probably be said about Villa too. If your beach FFP but get promoted you get away with it.

Exactly. The rules are don’t get caught and if you do get promoted. Not an open invitation for this bullshitery is it? 
 

Either way Derby did get caught and didn’t get promoted. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Qpr didn't get away with it, they were heavly fined and suffered from transfer embargo,

In fact it's only thr last 18 months that they finally recovered,

Villa will face the music if they get relegated

QPR stupidly got relegated! What a message. Break as many FFP rules you like as long as you get promoted and don’t get relegated! 

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

9 hours ago, REDOXO said:

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)

This is definitely a good point. Derby have a bigger support than Wimbledon had. For the record though we took more than 3000 to most games in our first season. Separated only from the pitch by a railing or in some case a rope. Here's a picture of Chessington and Hook's ground which was typical.

 

dsc045091.jpg

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

4 minutes ago, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

This is definitely a good point. Derby have a bigger support than Wimbledon had. For the record though we took more than 3000 to most games in our first season. Separated only from the pitch by a railing or in some case a rope. Here's a picture of Chessington and Hook's ground which was typical.

 

dsc045091.jpg

Know it well. I was brought up in Guildford! 
 

I went to Plough Lane many times. I think I was there for their first game in the top flight Everton 1/1? 
 

Hauling huge traveling support regionally with all respect to Aldershot/Wimbledon is a different issue with Derby, despite what is right and wrong in principle! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Signally, Morris' ramblings would better able to be scrutinized had his companies published unimpaired accounts - oh the irony. 

I may not know much about anything but as an ex Estates Director I do know a bit about property asset valuation, including bespoke assets. As with his reference to amortization it strikes me Morris fails to appreciate the problem isn't that there are options available for valuation, rather that when one picks an option one should stick to it.

Think of it like this. A football stadium is a a large, capital hungry, expensive to maintain and largely underutilized structure. It serves primarily to facilitate business income for its occupant. That's why it makes sense to split such entities and why you don't see estate agents in your High Street regularly flogging them, there being few buyers. So how much is a stadium worth? 

If you're an investor not owing a football club the answer would be a measure of how much income might be generated each year by the facility? Rent from the football club, income from other events, conferencing, hospitality, advertising et al. When questioned about Derby's valuation, assuming an income based valuation, Morris gave an odd and contradictory answer. On one hand he reminded football affords only 30 days income, that fitting in events around football is problematic, that with very high overheads such events make nowhere near as much money as folks imagine. On the other he said  he'd researched a solution to show Derby could deliver 100 such events each year delivering £12m of non-football related income. Impressive. Now were I a potential buyer my first thoughts would be why's Morris selling this cash cow and please may I see the books to show actually how much income has historically been generated? Accounts being problematic Morris opts for another valuation option, one most normal folks wouldn't adopt when assessing value.

Morris adopts a perfectly acceptable option, it's called Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) and in simple terms asks how much would I have to spend to replace the functionality of what's already there? This works fine provided you also accept the caveats associated with its methodology (that's the bit with which Morris has a problem.) It's useful for insurance purposes but unlike housing (where there's always demand,) never produces a value higher than its actual cost of replacement. It's the reverse of something some of you will have encountered when taking out buildings insurance on your home - why's the insured value less than I paid for it? It's a theoretical value, one unlikely to be used. It's not a value you'd achieve if selling on the open market. Morris argued it would cost £81m to replace Pride Park. Perhaps he's right, but the question would be why would you ever do that? That's the problem with his rationale, he's picks and chooses to suit.

In the near future he may well be looking at need of a third method of valuation, that of Residual Land Value and I can tell him for nothing that'll be low single digits.

Now, if only Morris had explained how, under Derby's employ, Tom Ince's mother became the highest paid scout in British football despite her knowing little about football....

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

12 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Qpr didn't get away with it, they were heavly fined and suffered from transfer embargo,

In fact it's only thr last 18 months that they finally recovered,

Villa will face the music if they get relegated

The three year EFL investigation over the league’s Profitability & Sustainability Rules concluded with Villa complying with all the regulations while in England’s second division. The Premier League also reviewed and confirmed compliance in accordance with its own policies and procedures.

 

FFP is too complicated for clever people not to work around, and too crude to actually protect clubs, except in extreme situations.
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

The three year EFL investigation over the league’s Profitability & Sustainability Rules concluded with Villa complying with all the regulations while in England’s second division. The Premier League also reviewed and confirmed compliance in accordance with its own policies and procedures.

 

FFP is too complicated for clever people not to work around, and too crude to actually protect clubs, except in extreme situations.
 

I wasn't aware of that, then that's fine then thanks for informing me

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Just had a look at the Derby forum. They really are deluded. The Morris letter is seen as saving the day, that if the EFL reject it, it is clear EFL have it in for them etc etc. Why not ask Morris to pay HMRC , that will sort the sale of the club, or deposit £10m to cover the WW and Boro claims (which he is confident in winning - with probable justification) . So Morris yet again is posturing, and has not opened his cheque book to solve the real issues. That Derby have still not filed accounts makes it even more ridiculous to blame EFL. Derby fans blaming Boro or EFL are letting Morris yet again off the hook. He is the reason they will be liquidated and cannot find a buyer. He can solve all of this by paying his dues. Very very easy Mel. Stop writing nonsense and start writing cheques if you want to save Derby. 

Indeed,

I dont care about the mfc and the ww claim, that's for them to sort out,

Once again to you thick Derby fans

PAY THE HMRC IN FULL!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Derby have still not filed accounts

Is that still the case? I thought they had until last Monday to provide EFL with all their unimpaired accounts, but when the one month extension to show they had sufficient funds to see the season through was offered the accounts condition appeared to get overlooked. Does EFL and Companies House have the accounts yet? If not, what's the EFL deadline?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

The three year EFL investigation over the league’s Profitability & Sustainability Rules concluded with Villa complying with all the regulations while in England’s second division. The Premier League also reviewed and confirmed compliance in accordance with its own policies and procedures.

 

FFP is too complicated for clever people not to work around, and too crude to actually protect clubs, except in extreme situations.
 

I guess Villa’s argument was that they’d sell Grealish (and others?) at the end of the season had they not gone up and needed to find £x million.

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Signally, Morris' ramblings would better able to be scrutinized had his companies published unimpaired accounts - oh the irony. 

I may not know much about anything but as an ex Estates Director I do know a bit about property asset valuation, including bespoke assets. As with his reference to amortization it strikes me Morris fails to appreciate the problem isn't that there are options available for valuation, rather that when one picks an option one should stick to it.

Think of it like this. A football stadium is a a large, capital hungry, expensive to maintain and largely underutilized structure. It serves primarily to facilitate business income for its occupant. That's why it makes sense to split such entities and why you don't see estate agents in your High Street regularly flogging them, there being few buyers. So how much is a stadium worth? 

If you're an investor not owing a football club the answer would be a measure of how much income might be generated each year by the facility? Rent from the football club, income from other events, conferencing, hospitality, advertising et al. When questioned about Derby's valuation, assuming an income based valuation, Morris gave an odd and contradictory answer. On one hand he reminded football affords only 30 days income, that fitting in events around football is problematic, that with very high overheads such events make nowhere near as much money as folks imagine. On the other he said  he'd researched a solution to show Derby could deliver 100 such events each year delivering £12m of non-football related income. Impressive. Now were I a potential buyer my first thoughts would be why's Morris selling this cash cow and please may I see the books to show actually how much income has historically been generated? Accounts being problematic Morris opts for another valuation option, one most normal folks wouldn't adopt when assessing value.

Morris adopts a perfectly acceptable option, it's called Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) and in simple terms asks how much would I have to spend to replace the functionality of what's already there? This works fine provided you also accept the caveats associated with its methodology (that's the bit with which Morris has a problem.) It's useful for insurance purposes but unlike housing (where there's always demand,) never produces a value higher than its actual cost of replacement. It's the reverse of something some of you will have encountered when taking out buildings insurance on your home - why's the insured value less than I paid for it? It's a theoretical value, one unlikely to be used. It's not a value you'd achieve if selling on the open market. Morris argued it would cost £81m to replace Pride Park. Perhaps he's right, but the question would be why would you ever do that? That's the problem with his rationale, he's picks and chooses to suit.

In the near future he may well be looking at need of a third method of valuation, that of Residual Land Value and I can tell him for nothing that'll be low single digits.

Now, if only Morris had explained how, under Derby's employ, Tom Ince's mother became the highest paid scout in British football despite her knowing little about football....

great post….??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

The three year EFL investigation over the league’s Profitability & Sustainability Rules concluded with Villa complying with all the regulations while in England’s second division. The Premier League also reviewed and confirmed compliance in accordance with its own policies and procedures.

 

FFP is too complicated for clever people not to work around, and too crude to actually protect clubs, except in extreme situations.
 

I appreciate and understand the statement but I would suggest a couple of caveats as far as the overall picture goes.

1) Why no EFL statement on the matter at hand? A simple "Yes we agree or yes Aston Villa have definitively passed and complied with all relevant P&S regulations" and a case closed would help a lot.

You're also aware of course that the initial decision in 2019 indeed for all clubs can be reviewed down the line- just ask Derby.

2) There are loopholes but they are closing. Had the loophole been been shut regarding Fixed Assets, that would have snookered quite a few clubs. By my reckoning even if you include the HS2 as permissible. Derby, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday would all have been bang to rights sooner- in a world without the fixed asset loophole I make the Aston Villa overspend to 2019 £25-30m.

The EFL also don't like inflated RPTs. Think they pushed back on Birmingham in 2018 and Sheffield Wednesday's questionable ones all the same were within fair value regs.

3) The EFL. They have taken pursuing clubs with a real vigour this summer. I thought the new sanctions that Derby were the first to feel were excellent- especially the Professional Standing one- the PL by comparison are dealing with Everton in a fairly mundane manner so far.

Professional Standing

Squad size not exceeding 23 players of Professional Standing, which means players of any age who have made one appearance- not start but appearance, in any competiton. This doesn't mitigate or offset sanctions however.

Derby it was determined had 19, but initially the EFL were keen to class a load of who made one appearance at Chorley in the Cup as this, and the only reason they played was due to a Covid outbreak.

They were allowed to sign 4 as a result, but under the following terms and conditions:

*No transfer fee

*No loan fee

*Wages per player not exceeding £4.5k per week. Probably issues with signing on fees too.

 *Contract length not EXCEEDING 12 months for a permanent addition or 6 months for a loan.

EFL approval required for all signings.

Sounds like a punishment but it isn't. If you're the EFL you can just say "Well for long as this drags on, this rule in play. Think of the strain on the club, bound to force them to the table- to negotiate on points and business plan. What do we care, rules are being upheld either way".

Indeed if you look at the Derby and Reading Agreed Decisions it's clear that the embargoes were a form of leverage.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, the EFL can if circumstances allow, severely restrict clubs in terms of their normal functions.

You know surely @AnAstonVillafan

Just how hemmed in, hell had Aston Villa been under that any club, the implications are pretty terrible.

You mention about protection of clubs with FFP. For me it's not about that as such, unless you mean the competitive integrity and the compliant majority. I'd be utterly relentless regardless of the implications for an individual club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Not sure, but if they had been filed it would be in the public domain in seconds, so I assume no. I might be wrong. 

The 31st January deadline in the agreed decision was only in respect of providing accounts to the EFL. It did not include filing on CH.

IIRC companies in insolvency don't have to file on CH (bar those filings necessary as part of the insolvency itself). Happy to be corrected on this if someone knows better.

Unless someone decides to publish yet another open letter detailing the submissions to the EFL, I don't think we'll be told of they met or failed that deadline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The June order in terms of accounts and the requirements is multi-layered but to cut down a summary to the relevant bits...

1) Restated ie right and accurate accounts for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 to the EFL by 4pm on 31st January 2022.

2) The 2020/21 accounts and the 2021/22 Profit and Sustainability calculations to the EFL by the required deadline for all clubs.

3) Although clubs in administration don't have to submit to CH @ExiledAjax the June order sort of covers that too- says that from 2020/21 onwards even if in administration, they need to make arrangements to publish. Could be the website maybe?

Hopefully SL, Gibson, Couhig and other right minded owners will be holding the EFL to this and Derby's conditions moving forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

The 31st January deadline in the agreed decision was only in respect of providing accounts to the EFL. It did not include filing on CH.

IIRC companies in insolvency don't have to file on CH (bar those filings necessary as part of the insolvency itself). Happy to be corrected on this if someone knows better.

Unless someone decides to publish yet another open letter detailing the submissions to the EFL, I don't think we'll be told of they met or failed that deadline.

Thanks, I knew there's no obligation to file at CH for periods in administration but had thought the administrators would file amended returns for those reporting periods when not in administration. It may be moot but makes a mockery of CH not shutting companies down if failing to file unimpaired accounts within a reasonable timeframe.

  • Like 1
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...