Derby County

[Hxj]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

tbh, I do sometimes

[Hxj]

6 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

then clearly I was?!

With 10k posts over 20 years I assumed otherwise!

Enjoy League 2 

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

It is never impossible to borrow money - the lender will be looking to make a return to cover the risk - I have a contact who can source funds for a business with no security and a rate of around 4% a month plus fees ...

At the risk of sounding a conspiracist your contact wasn't 'au fait' with Richard Keogh's kneecaps perchance? 

[Hxj]

5 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

At the risk of sounding a conspiracist your contact wasn't 'au fait' with Richard Keogh's kneecaps perchance? 

I plead the fifth!

Edited September 23, 2021 by Hxj

[REDOXO]

9 minutes ago, Hxj said:

With 10k posts over 20 years I assumed otherwise!

Enjoy League 2 

Yes Now they have those natty little crowns etc, its not immediately obvious! However welcome to OTIB circa 2001

[CyderInACan]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

It works like this:

You want to borrow £100,000 cash for a year

I lend you £180,000 and charge you fees and interest of £80,000 in advance.

You need to pay me £180,000 within a year, or my debt collectors pay you a visit, failing that they pay your family a visit.

Sounds like Mel might’ve initially bought the ground from Brighthouse down East St. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

The force majeur argument looks suspect to me.

It opens the floodgates if allowed to stand. No accounts post June 2018 and the general integrity of the League, well if Derby's administration appeal allowed to stand then many clubs could try to cut corners.

I guess that their administrators are a safe pair of hands, - 21 points if and when implemented should send Derby down which after all is the title of the thread.

Some very ignorant and arrogant gobby characters on DCFCFans too. Small memo, your owner admitted to breaching P&S once restated. Fact- trip to Pride Park, looking forward to that once both deductions hopefully in place.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

 

[Port Said Red]

Going back to the Rooney discussion, I don't see any real problem with it even if they were paying him directly, which I don't believe they are/were. Many players at a certain level have multiple income streams, and Rooney and 32red could possibly point to ambassadorial or advertising work as a reason for payment. That contract might have been negotiated by MM or someone else at Derby based on the clause that said he has to become a Derby player. Rooney gets his money, while Derby only have to pay a smaller percentage of it.

This is a ruse that has been used in all sorts of sports, someone mentioned rugby before it went professional, but I believe it still happens in League cricket, especially in Lancashire and Yorkshire.

I do wonder how 32Reds involvement has changed since Rooney retired from playing, there is almost certainly less interest and publicity to be gleaned from a Manager of a team, than from a player who might do something on an individual level, even if the team is not performing.

Those who mention 3rd party ownership have got it the wrong way around, as someone else said, that would involve Derby paying 32red a sum of money in return for Rooneys services. Typically in the South American examples mentioned that means the player only seeing a small percentage of the total payment.

[ExiledAjax]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The force majeur argument looks suspect to me.

What is this argument? Could you kindly summarise?

I cannot for the life of me think of a way that dodgy accounting, failing P&S, or anything else that I know of this case could possibly ever fall under the kind of stuff normally set out in a force majeure clause.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

12 hours ago, Hxj said:

mmmm - I think that some on here are confused!

When are you buying your first Derby shirt? 

[AnotherDerbyFan]

11 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The force majeur argument looks suspect to me.

It opens the floodgates if allowed to stand. No accounts post June 2018 and the general integrity of the League, well if Derby's administration appeal allowed to stand then many clubs could try to cut corners.

I guess that their administrators are a safe pair of hands, - 21 points if and when implemented should send Derby down which after all is the title of the thread.

Some very ignorant and arrogant gobby characters on DCFCFans too. Small memo, your owner admitted to breaching P&S once restated. Fact- trip to Pride Park, looking forward to that once both deductions hopefully in place.

It's certainly hopeful thinking but it could happen.

If, there is conclusive proof that without Covid the club could have avoided administration, then I think it's too soon to rule it out. After all, a loss of £20m income is a big wedge of cash - that's a years worth of funding at £1.5m per month.

I'm hoping the 12 points is wiped out or even just reduced, but I'm still expecting to come out of this entire mess with a bigger deduction and the commencement of early preparation for L1.

[Monkeh]

14 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

It's certainly hopeful thinking but it could happen.

If, there is conclusive proof that without Covid the club could have avoided administration, then I think it's too soon to rule it out. After all, a loss of £20m income is a big wedge of cash - that's a years worth of funding at £1.5m per month.

I'm hoping the 12 points is wiped out or even just reduced, but I'm still expecting to come out of this entire mess with a bigger deduction and the commencement of early preparation for L1.

You will be punished further next season,.expect to do a Portsmouth and bolton

[BTRFTG]

9 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

It's certainly hopeful thinking but it could happen.

If, there is conclusive proof that without Covid the club could have avoided administration, then I think it's too soon to rule it out. After all, a loss of £20m income is a big wedge of cash - that's a years worth of funding at £1.5m per month.

I'm hoping the 12 points is wiped out or even just reduced, but I'm still expecting to come out of this entire mess with a bigger deduction and the commencement of early preparation for L1.

Covid was first reported end Jan 2020, it's impacts not felt for a couple of months afterwards. Odd it therefore prevented publication of accounts for the period June 2018/2019.

You see the problem with claiming all these 'ifs and buts' sums is they're meaningless without reference to non-impaired accounts and the problem at Derby is it appears most linked entities are allergic to posting those.

 

[chinapig]

2 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

You see the problem with claiming all these 'ifs and buts' sums is they're meaningless without reference to non-impaired accounts and the problem at Derby is it appears most linked entities are allergic to posting those.

Perhaps a "the dog ate our accounts" defence will be the next suggested grounds for appeal?

[BetterRedthanBlue]

4 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Perhaps a "the dog ate our accounts" defence will be the next suggested grounds for appeal?

I mean the dog ate my homework worked once when I was at school why shouldn't they try and hoodwink the EFL with it!

[supercidered]

55 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

It's certainly hopeful thinking but it could happen.

If, there is conclusive proof that without Covid the club could have avoided administration, then I think it's too soon to rule it out. After all, a loss of £20m income is a big wedge of cash - that's a years worth of funding at £1.5m per month.

I'm hoping the 12 points is wiped out or even just reduced, but I'm still expecting to come out of this entire mess with a bigger deduction and the commencement of early preparation for L1.

I hope the above in bold comes to pass.

Sick of Derby County FC, Derby County Board and associated cronies and Derby fans trying to weasel out of the punishments that are long overdue. I hope it's good riddance to at least League 1 and beyond.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

46 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

You will be punished further next season,.expect to do a Portsmouth and bolton

Why do you think that, when the administrators are confident of new ownership before January?

45 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Covid was first reported end Jan 2020, it's impacts not felt for a couple of months afterwards. Odd it therefore prevented publication of accounts for the period June 2018/2019.

You see the problem with claiming all these 'ifs and buts' sums is they're meaningless without reference to non-impaired accounts and the problem at Derby is it appears most linked entities are allergic to posting those.

I don't see the relevance of not submitting the accounts (a result of the EFL's investigation into the amortisation and stadium issues). Administration was brought upon us because of a lack of cash flow. A 50% drop in income over 16 months or so obviously plays a massive part in that, especially if without Covid we could have got through to a point where we'd be sustainable (break-even or better).

The EFL regs state:

Club income: In the event that a club suffers material adverse effects upon the loss of anticipated income streams which mean that it is unable to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due. This could only be grounds for appeal, however, if the loss occurs during the currency of a binding agreement (i.e. not upon expiry).

A £20m loss of income due to Coivid would match that description in my opinion.

As I said, a successful appeal based on force majeure is hopeful thinking, but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility at this stage.

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Why do you think that, when the administrators are confident of new ownership before January?

I don't see the relevance of not submitting the accounts (a result of the EFL's investigation into the amortisation and stadium issues). Administration was brought upon us because of a lack of cash flow. A 50% drop in income over 16 months or so obviously plays a massive part in that, especially if without Covid we could have got through to a point where we'd be sustainable (break-even or better).

The EFL regs state:

Club income: In the event that a club suffers material adverse effects upon the loss of anticipated income streams which mean that it is unable to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due. This could only be grounds for appeal, however, if the loss occurs during the currency of a binding agreement (i.e. not upon expiry).

A £20m loss of income due to Coivid would match that description in my opinion.

As I said, a successful appeal based on force majeure is hopeful thinking, but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility at this stage.

I don’t see how you can expect anything less than a 12 point deduction for Administration.  Them be the rules, there is no sliding scale.  I don’t see how you’ll get away with the points deduction for the other EFL charges, whether that be 9 (plus 3 Suspended) or another amount of points. Morris already admitted to a breach of FFP in 2018.  He didn’t elaborate whether that was one cycle breach, or multiple cycle breaches.

With Covid, there is already a process to submit losses and allow these to be allowable exclusions for FFP.

[chinapig]

4 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Why do you think that, when the administrators are confident of new ownership before January?

I don't see the relevance of not submitting the accounts (a result of the EFL's investigation into the amortisation and stadium issues). Administration was brought upon us because of a lack of cash flow. A 50% drop in income over 16 months or so obviously plays a massive part in that, especially if without Covid we could have got through to a point where we'd be sustainable (break-even or better).

The EFL regs state:

Club income: In the event that a club suffers material adverse effects upon the loss of anticipated income streams which mean that it is unable to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due. This could only be grounds for appeal, however, if the loss occurs during the currency of a binding agreement (i.e. not upon expiry).

A £20m loss of income due to Coivid would match that description in my opinion.

As I said, a successful appeal based on force majeure is hopeful thinking, but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility at this stage.

 

The supplementary rules already allow for adjustments for COVID-19 and apply to all clubs equally. So you can't just pluck a figure out of the air. Assuming you ever come up with any actual accounts.

Shockingly there is no special provision for Derby, so more victimisation by the EFL.

1.1.7  COVID-19 Costs means lost revenues and/or exceptional costs incurred by a Club that are directly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and that are identified and calculated in accordance with such guidance as issued by the Board;

and:

1.1.11  P&S Calculation means, save as indicated below, the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2. In respect of Season 2020/21 only, the P&S Calculation shall be the aggregation of:

(a)  the mean of the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T and T-1; and

(b)  the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-2; and

(c)  the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-3;

[BTRFTG]

44 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Why do you think that, when the administrators are confident of new ownership before January?

I don't see the relevance of not submitting the accounts (a result of the EFL's investigation into the amortisation and stadium issues). Administration was brought upon us because of a lack of cash flow. A 50% drop in income over 16 months or so obviously plays a massive part in that, especially if without Covid we could have got through to a point where we'd be sustainable (break-even or better).

The EFL regs state:

Club income: In the event that a club suffers material adverse effects upon the loss of anticipated income streams which mean that it is unable to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due. This could only be grounds for appeal, however, if the loss occurs during the currency of a binding agreement (i.e. not upon expiry).

A £20m loss of income due to Coivid would match that description in my opinion.

As I said, a successful appeal based on force majeure is hopeful thinking, but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility at this stage.

You just don't get it, do you?

How can you state there was a drop in income when you've no idea what the income was in the preceding periods? What purpose do you think accounts play? Why are they important?

You claim you were driven to administration by 'cashflow' problems associated with Covid yet that doesn't accord with the numerous dodgy dealings obvious  in the numerous accounts pre June 2018 and since then? Yeah, nobody knows as accounts haven't been filed since and that, if for no other reason, should see strike offs.

You don't need to be an accountant to see Derby gambled sums far, far beyond their means. Covid didn't turn Ince's mother into a scout, or pay ransoms to dodgy associates for scouting reports highlighting Mbappe & Dembele are 'useful', or sign a succession of expensive &  overpaid chancers. And that's the problem with gambling, when you lose you lose. You don't get your stakes returned.

If Derby fans, like Morris,  are looking for sympathy because they are/were weak and addicted to the prospect of success I give you the immortal prophecy of Jim Bowen:" Look what you could have won." That you also appear to have done your BFH; deserving of cheats, I'd say.

Edited September 24, 2021 by BTRFTG

[downendcity]

If, say, Preston, Millwall or Middlesborough were facing administration due to the impact of Covid  and pleading force majeur as a result, then there might be a degree of sympathy, as all these clubs complied with ffp rules, which, lest we forget, were introduced to prevent clubs getting into a financial mess.

Derby’s flouting of ffp rules, and attempts to disguise the level of losses,  would seem to indicate that it was their own financial mismanagement that bought them to the brink. Covid merely served to tip them over the edge.

 

[BTRFTG]

6 minutes ago, downendcity said:

as all these clubs complied with ffp rules, which, lest we forget, were introduced to prevent clubs getting into a financial mess

Save, as previously highlighted and historically evidenced, they weren't.

FFP should be scrapped.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t see how you can expect anything less than a 12 point deduction for Administration.  Them be the rules, there is no sliding scale.

Force majeure under EFL regulations.

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 I don’t see how you’ll get away with the points deduction for the other EFL charges, whether that be 9 (plus 3 Suspended) or another amount of points. Morris already admitted to a breach of FFP in 2018.  He didn’t elaborate whether that was one cycle breach, or multiple cycle breaches.

You're right, if there is a breach then we should have additional points deducted. Mel was vague in waht he said - he didn't say if it was what the EFL deemed the overspend to be, or whether it was the with a new 'Derby amortisation method'. I suspect the former.

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

With Covid, there is already a process to submit losses and allow these to be allowable exclusions for FFP.

That's for P&S, not for administration. 

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Force majeure under EFL regulations.

You're right, if there is a breach then we should have additional points deducted. Mel was vague in waht he said - he didn't say if it was what the EFL deemed the overspend to be, or whether it was the with a new 'Derby amortisation method'. I suspect the former.

That's for P&S, not for administration. 

Yes, I see your points….expecting the reality of being somewhere between Bob Hope and No Hope.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

 

The supplementary rules already allow for adjustments for COVID-19 and apply to all clubs equally. So you can't just pluck a figure out of the air. Assuming you ever come up with any actual accounts.

Shockingly there is no special provision for Derby, so more victimisation by the EFL.

1.1.7  COVID-19 Costs means lost revenues and/or exceptional costs incurred by a Club that are directly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and that are identified and calculated in accordance with such guidance as issued by the Board;

and:

1.1.11  P&S Calculation means, save as indicated below, the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2. In respect of Season 2020/21 only, the P&S Calculation shall be the aggregation of:

(a)  the mean of the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T and T-1; and

(b)  the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-2; and

(c)  the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-3;

That's P&S, not related to administration or cash flow

48 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

You just don't get it, do you?

How can you state there was a drop in income when you've no idea what the income was in the preceding periods? What purpose do you think accounts play? Why are they important?

You claim you were driven to administration by 'cashflow' problems associated with Covid yet that doesn't accord with the numerous dodgy dealings obvious  in the numerous accounts pre June 2018 and since then? Yeah, nobody knows as accounts haven't been filed since and that, if for no other reason, should see strike offs.

You don't need to be an accountant to see Derby gambled sums far, far beyond their means. Covid didn't turn Ince's mother into a scout, or pay ransoms to dodgy associates for scouting reports highlighting Mbappe & Dembele are 'useful', or sign a succession of expensive &  overpaid chancers. And that's the problem with gambling, when you lose you lose. You don't get your stakes returned.

If Derby fans, like Morris,  are looking for sympathy because they are/were weak and addicted to the prospect of success I give you the immortal prophecy of Jim Bowen:" Look what you could have won." That you also appear to have done your BFH; deserving of cheats, I'd say.

It's you who doesn't get it. A club's revenue isn't volitile... it's not going to go from £30m to £10m, then up to £40m in successive seasons in the Championship. In 17/18 revenue was just under £30m. Roughly £15m of that was from match receipts and commercial/hospitality activities (which would have been £0 (or certainly very close to) in 20/21. 
In 17/18, we reached the Play-off semis and early rounds of the cups (Man Utd away in FA Cup). 18/19, it was the Playoff Final and cup games away to Man utd, Chelsea, Southampton and Brighton (I think all 4 of those were on TV?). Match receipts would have been down in 19/20 (no Playoffs or cup run), but sponsorship thanks to Rooney would have offset that slightly. 20/21 would have been similar to 19/20, but for a full year of Rooney sponsorship. For simplicity, it's reasonable to just assume £30m revenue for all seasons, minus the Covid impact on match receipts and commercial/hospitality activities... c50% of revenue.

It's not about what we spent prior to Covid. It's about whether the numbers stack up to say we would not have been in administration if it wasn't for Covid - in our case, was the business going to be self-sustainable from the 22/23 season onwards.

I'm not looking for sympathy at all. I'm simply putting forward a potential viewpoint that some on here instantly choose to dismiss without actually looking at it in detail.

Edited September 24, 2021 by AnotherDerbyFan

[chinapig]

14 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

That's P&S, not related to administration or cash flow

I would nevertheless suggest that any reasonable person properly instructed as to the law as the lawyers say would apply the same logic i.e. that the impact of Covid was not unique to Derby, and therefore dismiss the argument.

The "we lost more than those little clubs" argument ignores the possibility that the clubs you disdain might have lost a smaller amount but an equal proportion of their income and amounts to special pleading. It also ignores the costs side of the equation, those costs having got out of control over a period predating Covid.

Still, Honest Mel is Innocent t-shirts could be a new income stream I suppose.

[semblar]

26 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

That's P&S, not related to administration or cash flow

It's you who doesn't get it. A club's revenue isn't volitile... it's not going to go from £30m to £10m, then up to £40m in successive seasons in the Championship. In 17/18 revenue was just under £30m. Roughly £15m of that was from match receipts and commercial/hospitality activities (which would have been £0 (or certainly very close to) in 20/21. 
In 17/18, we reached the Play-off semis and early rounds of the cups (Man Utd away in FA Cup). 18/19, it was the Playoff Final and cup games away to Man utd, Chelsea, Southampton and Brighton (I think all 4 of those were on TV?). Match receipts would have been down in 19/20 (no Playoffs or cup run), but sponsorship thanks to Rooney would have offset that slightly. 20/21 would have been similar to 19/20, but for a full year of Rooney sponsorship. For simplicity, it's reasonable to just assume £30m revenue for all seasons, minus the Covid impact on match receipts and commercial/hospitality activities... c50% of revenue.

It's not about what we spent prior to Covid. It's about whether the numbers stack up to say we would not have been in administration if it wasn't for Covid - in our case, was the business going to be self-sustainable from the 22/23 season onwards.

I'm not looking for sympathy at all. I'm simply putting forward a potential viewpoint that some on here instantly choose to dismiss without actually looking at it in detail.

I won't dismiss that out of hand, but you have seen counter-arguments here already. Yes, the income will have dropped for sure.... but the same is true for all of the clubs in the championship (parachute clubs excepted perhaps) - none of them have had income from tickets or hospitality/commercial streams. SO the question to ask is why Derby and not most of the clubs? For that the answer most would jump to would be the "shenanigans" that Mel got up to chasing the dream.

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, chinapig said:

I would nevertheless suggest that any reasonable person properly instructed as to the law as the lawyers say would apply the same logic i.e. that the impact of Covid was not unique to Derby, and therefore dismiss the argument.

Precisely. Others have set out the black and white rules, so this is more of a common sense/golden rule approach.

I don't see how Derby could claim that they went into administration solely because of Covid-related losses when there are literally dozens of other clubs in the EFL, the Premier League, non-league, France, Italy, the USA, Sierra Leone etc that have suffered similarly due to Covid and yet have somehow managed to not enter administration.

Any particular sensitivity or exposure that Derby had that caused Covid to hit them harder than other clubs immediately defeats the FM argument as it intrinsically means that their administration is not solely down to Covid - it's down to that pre-existing financial sensitivity or over-exposure that was then compounded or exacerbated by Covid. It's only made worse by the fact that those sensitivities were created through the flouting of the P&S rules.

Logically it just isn't an argument that holds any water.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I would nevertheless suggest that any reasonable person properly instructed as to the law as the lawyers say would apply the same logic i.e. that the impact of Covid was not unique to Derby, and therefore dismiss the argument.

The "we lost more than those little clubs" argument ignores the possibility that the clubs you disdain might have lost a smaller amount but an equal proportion of their income and amounts to special pleading. It also ignores the costs side of the equation, those costs having got out of control over a period predating Covid.

It doesn't matter if Covid affected other clubs or not and by how much. All that would matter is if without Covid the club wouldn't have entered administration.

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Still, Honest Mel is Innocent t-shirts could be a new income stream I suppose.

8 minutes ago, semblar said:

I won't dismiss that out of hand, but you have seen counter-arguments here already. Yes, the income will have dropped for sure.... but the same is true for all of the clubs in the championship (parachute clubs excepted perhaps) - none of them have had income from tickets or hospitality/commercial streams. SO the question to ask is why Derby and not most of the clubs? For that the answer most would jump to would be the "shenanigans" that Mel got up to chasing the dream.

See my above comment.