Derby County

[Monkeh]

3 minutes ago, thatchersgold said:

Will that be immediate? Or next season

Depends when they finish auditing all the accounts

But I expect it will by by the end of October

With further punishments possible

[thatchersgold]

Just now, Monkeh said:

Depends when they finish auditing all the accounts

But I expect it will by by the end of October

With further punishments possible

I thought after they agreed a 9 point deduction this was there way around getting both. Certainly hope there punished further

[Davefevs]

Just now, thatchersgold said:

I thought after they agreed a 9 point deduction this was there way around getting both. Certainly hope there punished further

Nope, totally separate things.  Administration points already deducted, EFL charges still being finalised.

[chinapig]

I'm becoming a little confused (my default setting admittedly!).

I saw a statement from the EFL that Derby had submitted their revised accounts before the deadline but the BBC reported that they had yet to be submitted. Though they may have meant submitted to Companies House perhaps.

As to the agreed points deduction I have not seen any unequivocal statement that Derby had in fact agreed it and saw a report elsewhere that it now has to be negotiated with the administrators, who are unlikely to agree to it.

We now have a bland statement from the EFL following administration but the facts of the case are still not clear - at least to me.

[thatchersgold]

5 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm becoming a little confused (my default setting admittedly!).

I saw a statement from the EFL that Derby had submitted their revised accounts before the deadline but the BBC reported that they had yet to be submitted. Though they may have meant submitted to Companies House perhaps.

As to the agreed points deduction I have not seen any unequivocal statement that Derby had in fact agreed it and saw a report elsewhere that it now has to be negotiated with the administrators, who are unlikely to agree to it.

We now have a bland statement from the EFL following administration but the facts of the case are still not clear - at least to me.

Was on sky sports just over a week ago saying they had agreed a reduced 9point deduction, the efl often accept as it saves on court costs etc but if not agreed can actually be more points 

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm becoming a little confused (my default setting admittedly!).

I saw a statement from the EFL that Derby had submitted their revised accounts before the deadline but the BBC reported that they had yet to be submitted. Though they may have meant submitted to Companies House perhaps.

As to the agreed points deduction I have not seen any unequivocal statement that Derby had in fact agreed it and saw a report elsewhere that it now has to be negotiated with the administrators, who are unlikely to agree to it.

We now have a bland statement from the EFL following administration but the facts of the case are still not clear - at least to me.

Think what MM said was they had sent their proposed accounts / FFP submissions, but EFL were still having ongoing discussion with them about the content.

[Davefevs]

From BBC:

The extent of losses beyond 2018 is not known because accounts are still to be published following an agreement between Derby and HMRC that they could be held back until the EFL case was concluded. 

But it is accepted by all parties they contain further significant losses.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58641014

[Davefevs]

In addition to the obvious financial issues, there are also significant compensation payments to former manager Phillip Cocu and defender Richard Keogh to pay.

Cocu was dismissed in November 2020, with an estimated payout of £4m due. Keogh won his appeal in May against his dismissal for misconduct, which cost Derby another £2.3m.

And then there is Rooney.

Although the bulk of his wages are paid by club sponsor 32Red, in his recent BBC interview in which he apologised to fans, Morris said the club were paying Rooney "a competitive salary".

Given his status as a former England captain and his country's record goalscorer, it is assumed Rooney's wages are high.

The 35-year-old said at the weekend he had no intention to quit. His contract runs to the summer of 2023.

is the bit in bold above true?  Thought we’d been told differently.  More cheating!

[Bristol Rob]

I thought it was known that 32 were covering his wages (thus his squad number), what I could never understand was how that fitted in with 3rd party ownership.

[Monkeh]

35 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

In addition to the obvious financial issues, there are also significant compensation payments to former manager Phillip Cocu and defender Richard Keogh to pay.

Cocu was dismissed in November 2020, with an estimated payout of £4m due. Keogh won his appeal in May against his dismissal for misconduct, which cost Derby another £2.3m.

And then there is Rooney.

Although the bulk of his wages are paid by club sponsor 32Red, in his recent BBC interview in which he apologised to fans, Morris said the club were paying Rooney "a competitive salary".

Given his status as a former England captain and his country's record goalscorer, it is assumed Rooney's wages are high.

The 35-year-old said at the weekend he had no intention to quit. His contract runs to the summer of 2023.

is the bit in bold above true?  Thought we’d been told differently.  More cheating!

Doesn't that equate to third party ownership?

[Hxj]

14 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Doesn't that equate to third party ownership?

No.

Rooney wassn't being paid by 32Red.  As an example 32Red paid DCFC extra sponsorship of £25k a week when Rooney joined.  DCFC could then afford to pay Rooney an extra £20k a week salary.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

I'm becoming a little confused (my default setting admittedly!).

I saw a statement from the EFL that Derby had submitted their revised accounts before the deadline but the BBC reported that they had yet to be submitted. Though they may have meant submitted to Companies House perhaps.

As to the agreed points deduction I have not seen any unequivocal statement that Derby had in fact agreed it and saw a report elsewhere that it now has to be negotiated with the administrators, who are unlikely to agree to it.

We now have a bland statement from the EFL following administration but the facts of the case are still not clear - at least to me.

 

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Think what MM said was they had sent their proposed accounts / FFP submissions, but EFL were still having ongoing discussion with them about the content.

As I understand it.

Those accounts to which he was referring were to 2018, ie the 3 years to 2018.

These using the EFL's preferred method or restatement or whatever, showed a loss of £4m or that equated to 4 points- he was a bit vague on the precise nature.

That's separate to anything thereafter, ie 2019 and beyond- but the proposed settlement- wholly separate for the -12 into admin- was:

• Initial deduction instantly applied of 9 points
• A further 3 points suspended
• A business plan- as part of the current and ongoing P&S requirements to ensure compliance at all times.

This therefore I believe would be there to cover it all, everything up to the present- an all in one approach.

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

though it may not necessarily follow he is the beneficial owner.

He's on Companies House as the owner, that will do for me 

 

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I've seen elsewhere suggestion that funding may have come from him and other parties, excluding MSD.

Depends which funding - if the stadium purchase there appears to have been no funding - it was left outstanding at June 2018.  If it has been funded by Morris now then I still don't get how the club ended up in Administration.

It was MSD who legally put the club into Administration, so they are still owed money by either the Stadium Group or the Football Group.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, Monkeh said:

They can't and would get a further harsher points deduction,

But as they are ****** anyway may as well accept it,

Although by the time this is all sorted there is a very real chance of Derby being a league 2 or even a non league club, that's how serious it is

We say this but the administrators were very bullish today, from snippets that I've read.

1. No player sales intended in Jan.
2. In fact, the hope is to strengthen the team.
3. They would like Pride Park and Moor Farm returned to the club's ownership.
4. Wages? We are confident of borrowing cash to help to fund it.

They did though from what I've read, concede that -12 likely wouldn't be the end of the deductions.

[Monkeh]

13 minutes ago, Hxj said:

No.

Rooney wassn't being paid by 32Red.  As an example 32Red paid DCFC extra sponsorship of £25k a week when Rooney joined.  DCFC could then afford to pay Rooney an extra £20k a week salary.

That's third party ownership,

Derby didn't pay his wages a 3rd party did through creative accounting 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, BetterRedThanBlue said:

Going onto a point raised by @BTRFTG is there any evidence that derby have paid rent on the stadium? Or is it contained in accounts that aren't on companies House?

Because surely if no rent has been paid that would incur an additional penalty?

From a quick look, I see no rent payments received- which goes against what we see on Reading's year it was there before being resold, Birmingham's Stadium company, Aston Villa's stadium company- sure Sheffield 3 Limited when released will also show similar.

Derby's though- Gellaw Newco 202, zero evidence of rent payments. If the other accounts ever released then surely this would shed more light.

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

But is there any evidence rent has ever been paid? It's not in the investment holding accounts and Gellaw 203 (I hope you're sitting down,) have yet to file accounts which are long overdue.

As you say, £1.1m per season in rent would give nowhere near a valuation of £81m for the stadium.

Yep. Along with:

1. Sevco 5112
2. The Club- ie Derby County Football Club Limited
3. Club DCFC
4. The Derby County FC Academy Limited
5. Stadia DCFC

[Hxj]

5 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Derby didn't pay his wages a 3rd party did through creative accounting 

Never imagined seeing the words "Derby", "Creative" and "Accounting" in a post on here 

[Davefevs]

51 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I thought it was known that 32 were covering his wages (thus his squad number), what I could never understand was how that fitted in with 3rd party ownership.

42 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Doesn't that equate to third party ownership?

24 minutes ago, Hxj said:

No.

Rooney wassn't being paid by 32Red.  As an example 32Red paid DCFC extra sponsorship of £25k a week when Rooney joined.  DCFC could then afford to pay Rooney an extra £20k a week salary.

That was what I understood too….so either sloppy from BBC, or dodgy from Derby!!!

[Bristol Rob]

Wonder how many other players wages are offset by creative sponsorship....

Just that with a review underway in to how betting companies are advertising it might soon be a grey area.

[Mr Popodopolous]

John Percy has said that the administrators will reluctantly accept the additional 9 points.

Let's hope that the business plan remains in play as well. No free passes!!

Edited September 23, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

John Percy has said that the administrators will reluctantly accept the additional 9 points.

I wondered whether they were referring more to the proposed Business Plan not being acceptable (needing further negotiation) rather than the points….but that was only my thinking based on “surely they aren’t taking the pi$$ already”!

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

I wondered whether they were referring more to the proposed Business Plan not being acceptable (needing further negotiation) rather than the points….but that was only my thinking based on “surely they aren’t taking the pi$$ already”!

Yep, that could have been the sticking point.

As I've said before, objectively speaking it should be fairly easy to calculate- they can spend/lose whatever they have remaining in terms of their headroom. ie

a )£39m-x=Permitted remaining expenditure in 2021/22 under business plan.

or

b) Losses reset to £13m per season ie aggregate for T-1 and T-2 is £26m-x=remaining expenditure in 2021/22 under business plan,

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yep, that could have been the sticking point.

As I've said before, objectively speaking it should be fairly easy to calculate- they can spend/lose whatever they have remaining in terms of their headroom. ie

a )£39m-x=Permitted remaining expenditure in 2021/22 under business plan.

or

b) Losses reset to £13m per season ie aggregate for T-1 and T-2 is £26m-x=remaining expenditure in 2021/22 under business plan,

I guess the issue might be that they’ve already bust the £39m???

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I guess the issue might be that they’ve already bust the £39m???

Even to this year??

In which case, a business plan would require a club to sell before loans or frees in. They would have further financial targets to hit if that's the case or potentially face further punishments- but I assume a business plan would be to make sure they don't exceed once again. If they are on track to exceed even that then it's worse than I thought.

What I would like to see- for both Derby and Reading when these deductions are finalised, ie the P&S ones is some kind of written reasons for agreed settlement. Which periods they broke in, by how much etc- would be illuminating.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Even to this year??

In which case, a business plan would require sell before loans or frees in. They would have further financial targets to hit if that's the case or potentially face further punishments- but I assume a business plan would be to make sure they don't exceed once again.

£39m is of course a 3 year period….so £13m this season is quite easy to bust if Mel was paying in £1.5m per month

So I can see why Administration team want to agree business plan, not Morris prior to Administration.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Davefevs

[ExiledAjax]

On the Rooney/32Red thing. It's bit weird, and I don't like the precedent it kind of sets...but I can't see how it is something they should be punished for. Is it so different from what many, many clubs (including our own) do (or used to do) with inviting local businesses to sponsor certain players? The profile of the player and the sums involved might be bigger, but the principle is surely the same - that the club get money to pay for a player, and the business gets the kudos of being associated with that player. That Rooney wore 32 as part of it is just an element of the agreed contract.

Perhaps there is an argument that if the 32Red 'sponsorship' was the defining reason that allowed Derby to sign him, and that without it he would not have signed, then maybe there are more questions to ask...but I suspect it would still be broadly ok.

I'm also really not sure that it is true 'third-party ownership' as we understand it, and as we have seen used in S. America, and at times in high profile cases like Tevez and Mascherano. To my knowledge 32Red have at no point owned any of the economic benefit of Rooney's contract. For example had he been sold they wouldn't have benefited from that sale, and got no benefit from the licensing of Rooney's image rights or other economic assets. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't like it, especially given the industry that 32Red are in, but I'm not sure this is the thing to be trying to punish Derby over. 

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

On the Rooney/32Red thing. It's bit weird, and I don't like the precedent it kind of sets...but I can't see how it is something they should be punished for. Is it so different from what many, many clubs (including our own) do (or used to do) with inviting local businesses to sponsor certain players? The profile of the player and the sums involved might be bigger, but the principle is surely the same - that the club get money to pay for a player, and the business gets the kudos of being associated with that player. That Rooney wore 32 as part of it is just an element of the agreed contract.

Perhaps there is an argument that if the 32Red 'sponsorship' was the defining reason that allowed Derby to sign him, and that without it he would not have signed, then maybe there are more questions to ask...but I suspect it would still be broadly ok.

I'm also really not sure that it is true 'third-party ownership' as we understand it, and as we have seen used in S. America, and at times in high profile cases like Tevez and Mascherano. To my knowledge 32Red have at no point owned any of the economic benefit of Rooney's contract. For example had he been sold they wouldn't have benefited from that sale, and got no benefit from the licensing of Rooney's image rights or other economic assets. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't like it, especially given the industry that 32Red are in, but I'm not sure this is the thing to be trying to punish Derby over. 

It’s a very good point.  Assuming Rooney doesn’t get PAYE from 32Red, then I don’t care.  The BBC article alludes differently.  Of course, as I stated, might’ve been sloppy writing.  But if 32Red are paying him, then that portion of his wages won’t be going through Derby’s books….and that feels wrong (or other more appropriate  word!).

I had more of the feeling of the early pro/am rugby days, player x employed by the sponsoring company as a way of avoiding him having to be paid fully by the semi-professional rugby club.  My mate was paid by one of Bath RFC’s sponsors to be a glorified milk-man by day, Premiership rugby player by night.  I’m not sure a battery powered milk float had enough welly to carry his bulk around.

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We say this but the administrators were very bullish today, from snippets that I've read.

1. No player sales intended in Jan.
2. In fact, the hope is to strengthen the team.
3. They would like Pride Park and Moor Farm returned to the club's ownership.
4. Wages? We are confident of borrowing cash to help to fund it.

They did though from what I've read, concede that -12 likely wouldn't be the end of the deductions.

So their responsibility is to the creditors yet they intend to pass up the opportunity to raise money through sales, in fact spend on new signings thus adding to the wage bill, and to borrow to pay those wages?

In any event who is going to lend substantial sums to a club whose only asset is players, the value of which they refuse to realise?

I don't see how the creditors benefit from this, though I am no expert of course.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

It’s a very good point.  Assuming Rooney doesn’t get PAYE from 32Red, then I don’t care.  The BBC article alludes differently.  Of course, as I stated, might’ve been sloppy writing.  But if 32Red are paying him, then that portion of his wages won’t be going through Derby’s books….and that feels wrong (or other more appropriate  word!).

I had more of the feeling of the early pro/am rugby days, player x employed by the sponsoring company as a way of avoiding him having to be paid fully by the semi-professional rugby club.  My mate was paid by one of Bath RFC’s sponsors to be a glorified milk-man by day, Premiership rugby player by night.  I’m not sure a battery powered milk float had enough welly to carry his bulk around.

I don't think it is this. I think it is sloppy wording on the BBC's part. There's no doubt the Derby/Rooney/32Red deal was a bit grubby, perhaps 'creative', but it would seem that it wasn't the case that Rooney's wages were being paid directly by 32Red. This article - https://www.sportspromedia.com/interviews/why-32red-is-betting-big-on-wayne-rooney/ - sets it out quite well, complete with ludicrously worded quotes from people in the know. The key line is:

"As for claims 32Red is making a mockery of financial fair play (FFP) by paying Rooney’s weekly wages, reported to be around UK£90,000 (US$109,000) a week?

“To be clear, 32Red did not sign Wayne Rooney and 32Red is not paying Wayne Rooney’s wages. Our agreement is solely with Derby County,” Banbury [Neil Banbury, 32Red’s general manager] asserts.

“Our commercial agreement with Derby is sensitive, but it is a significant additional investment on top of our original sponsorship agreement with the club.”"

Apparently the signing did lead to the bigger sponsorship deal, Banbury admits that when he says "“When Derby told us they were signing Rooney, we again decided to deepen our relationship with the club."" but I'd be amazed if even Morris et al were stupid enough to have a concrete flow of cash from 32Red to Rooney. 

As I said, it's shady, 'creative', and I certainly would not want Bristol City to do similar...but from what I know, I doubt it is something Derby can be punished for as part of all that they are currently going through.

Edited September 23, 2021 by ExiledAjax