Derby County

[REDOXO]

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Not sure anyone would pay £8m when they are seeing Shinne transfer get accepted for £30k.

Is he the one rumoured to be going to Boro for £100k or is that another player?  Losing track during these fire sales!

Yeah. Fire sale being the Operative term. 8m for a club on the brink. We sold Tom Richie to Sunderland and Gerry Gow to Man City for a fraction of their value 41 years ago. 
 

The best Derby can hope for is a bidding war on a player whose value decreases every minute closer we get to Jan 2nd without a takeover deal. 

Edited January 16, 2022 by REDOXO

[ExiledAjax]

47 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Even if I could accept that argument, the HMRC bill has nothing to do with anyone apart from Morris. And for that we are all paying. The HMRC bit, for someone with 500m does make me  a little agitated . THe issue with the EFL is marginal in these respects, as we are all in the same boat. It is the fact he took the ground and failed to pay HMRC that really should upset them. If he hands over the ground, others will take on the HMRC and liability of being sued by other clubs. The issues with Boro and WW are more complex but why would anyone go to Derby with all of these issues unanswered by Morris. Maybe he is bankrupt and not worth 500m . I don't know. But HE did know what he was doing. 

And I totally agree with you.

[martnewts]

9 hours ago, Hxj said:

I think that Derby would have gone through some sort of sale, reorganisation or insolvency event before the end of the 2019/20 season due to the January 2020 insolvency action by HMRC if it had not been for the virus stopping all HMRC winding up procedures. It needs to be remembered that Derby went into Administration on 22 September 2021, HMRC were restarting insolvency actions on 1 October 2021, that is not a coincidence.

Oh and Regulation 17 is pretty thorough:

17           HMRC Reporting

17.1        Current HMRC Debt.  Any Club which has not within 28 (twenty-eight) days of the relevant Due Date paid to HMRC the amounts due to be paid to HMRC to discharge:

17.1.1    the Club’s full liability for PAYE & NIC due in respect of any and all employees or former employees of the Club for the immediately preceding payment period; and/or

17.1.2    the Club's full liability for PAYE & NIC which becomes due as a result of an assessment issued by HMRC, subject to clause 17.8 below,

(each a ‘Default Event’) shall report the Default Event to The League within 2 working days of the Default Event.

17.2        Reporting Default Events.  When a Club reports a Default Event to The League it shall at the same time provide to The League details of any and all amounts due to HMRC from the Club in respect of PAYE & NIC, together with the periods to which they relate.

17.3        Consequences of a Default Event.  Without prejudice to the general position (pursuant to Regulation 43.4) that all registrations must be approved by The League and subject to Regulation 17.3A, a Club which is subject to a Default Event shall be subject to a registration embargo such that it shall not be permitted to register any Player with that Club without the prior written consent of The League for the period that the Club is subject to a Default Event.

17.3A   Regulation 17.3 will not apply where a Club suffers a Default Event due to the failure to discharge a COVID PAYE Liability and has entered into a Time to Pay Agreement and is compliant with the terms of that Time To Pay Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, where a Club defaults on the terms of a Time to Pay Agreement, and such default results in all outstanding amounts becoming due to HMRC immediately, the Club shall remain subject to a Default Event until such time as the outstanding amounts are paid or included within any other Time to Pay Agreement.

17.4        Failure to Notify a Default Event.  A Club which fails to report a Default Event shall be guilty of misconduct and shall be referred to a Disciplinary Commission in accordance with Section 7 of these Regulations.

17.5        Provision of Authority.  Each Club shall provide to The League, not later than 31 May prior to the commencement of a Season, (and in any event within seven days of any request for a further authority from The League), an original, irrevocable authority (which shall not be time constrained) in the form prescribed by The League and signed by a director and the company secretary of the Club, addressed to HMRC authorising HMRC to provide to The League information relating to amounts of PAYE & NIC payable, paid and overdue from the Club to HMRC from time to time including, by way of example and without limitation, the amount of Arrears (if any), the existence of and current position in respect of any Time to Pay Agreement and if a Club suffers a Default Event (‘Authority’).  The League shall be entitled to forward the Authority to HMRC without having to seek the consent of the Club. 

17.6        The Board shall have the power to suspend any Club which, not later than 31 May prior to the Commencement of the following Season (including, for the avoidance of doubt, those Clubs entering The League by way of promotion from the National League or relegation from the Premier League for the following Season) or within seven days of a request, fails to provide to The League the Authority in the required form.  A suspended Club shall not play in:

17.6.1    any League Match;

17.6.2    any Football Association Cup Match;

17.6.3    any EFL Cup Match;

17.6.4    any EFL Trophy Match; and/or

17.6.5    any other match conducted or controlled by The League and in which it would otherwise be eligible to compete.

17.7        For the purposes of the League Competition, the Board shall have the power to determine how the cancellation of a League Match caused by the suspension of one of the Clubs, which should have participated in it, shall be treated.

17.8        Disputed Amounts.  Any amounts which HMRC claims to be due to it, for example by way of an assessment, but which have been formally contested by the Club shall not be considered as due to HMRC for the purposes of this Regulation 17 until such time as a final determination is made on HMRC’s claim.

17.9        Information provided by a Club and/or HMRC in relation to any Arrears shall only be made available to senior members of The League’s staff and the independent Chairman (as described in Article 17.1.1) and shall not be disclosed to the Board generally, provided always that The League shall be entitled to report the happening of a Default Event to the Board for the purposes of enforcing Regulation 17.3 (Consequences of a Default Event).

Thanks for the rules on payments to HMRC which make perfect sense. Clearly it seems to me that  the EFL aren’t monitoring this as closely as they should be, I don’t recall any club that has been in difficulty publicly charged with any offence in connection with late payments to HMRC yet any club that ends up in admin frequently has significant HMRC debt and I would be certain that every club that has paid players late would also have paid the associated deductions late as well.

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, martnewts said:

Thanks for the rules on payments to HMRC which make perfect sense. Clearly it seems to me that  the EFL aren’t monitoring this as closely as they should be, I don’t recall any club that has been in difficulty publicly charged with any offence in connection with late payments to HMRC yet any club that ends up in admin frequently has significant HMRC debt and I would be certain that every club that has paid players late would also have paid the associated deductions late as well.

My gut feel is that Derby / Morris will’ve done all they can to stop it being picked up initially???

[martnewts]

It seems the rules give the EFL pretty much unfettered access to a clubs HMRC payment record but I guess if the don’t look then they don’t find out, I guess the matrix of differ companies involved also doesn’t make it as straightforward to monitor as it could be

[Hxj]

59 minutes ago, martnewts said:

I don’t recall any club that has been in difficulty publicly charged with any offence in connection with late payments to HMRC

The sanction is a Transfer Embargo.  Only recently has such detail been publicly available.  It could be that Derby were subject to such an embargo from sometime in 2019.

[REDOXO]

Just read this on the WWFC FORUM. I thought it was very sensible and well written from their perspective

 

Having spent half my career in insolvency related work I can tell you the following

a) no-one held a gun to MM's or DAFC's head and forced them to spend more than they could afford, this was a choice with obvious consequences if they failed to get to the promised land of the Premier League

b) Having failed to gain promotion the over spending chickens came home to roost which led to a conscious decision to change the amortisation method, take a loan from MDS, revalue the stadium & then sell it to MM. These were all ways to try to deliberatelu muddy the waters and avoid breaching the Profitability & Sustainability rules,

c) No one forced DCFC to not file their accounts with the EFL on time, it was their choice to file them late in an attempt (successful) to ensure points deductions were applied after the season thus staving off relegation for another season

d) It is likely HMRC could not chase (or sue) for some or all of the owing tax earlier due to the various Covid tax holidays and deferrals on offer over the last 18-20 months

e) HMRC are highly unlikely to be prepared to reduce their demand as they are not prepared to create a very expensive precedent amongst football clubs and others

f) our claim in the administration is perfectly reasonable and given they have not thrown it out; it appears the administrators accept it has some degree of foundation and legitimacy (this may or may not be at the behest of the EFL depends on which paper and which conspiracy theory you read)

g) WWFC/RC and the administrators will no doubt negotiate a settlement which I am guessing will likely be in region of £1.5-3m

h) The self admitted actions of others caused a clearly definable loss to WWFC. It is therefore absolutely right, reasonable and responsible for the directors of WWFC to protect the companies fiduciary interests as the directors of any other business would do.

i) It is rumoured that Ashley is already haggling with Gibson to get him to "reel his neck in" over the 'Boro claim - Ashley & Gibson go back a long way so this may well succeed.

j) NO ONE is suing DCFC at this point in time

P.S. I collaborated with/helped Raymond Snoddy at the FT when he uncovered & unravelled the spiders web of companies Maxwell had and used to defraud pretty much everyone but especially Mirror Group pensioners

[Loco Rojo]

11 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Just read this on the WWFC FORUM. I thought it was very sensible and well written from their perspective

 

Having spent half my career in insolvency related work I can tell you the following

a) no-one held a gun to MM's or DAFC's head and forced them to spend more than they could afford, this was a choice with obvious consequences if they failed to get to the promised land of the Premier League

b) Having failed to gain promotion the over spending chickens came home to roost which led to a conscious decision to change the amortisation method, take a loan from MDS, revalue the stadium & then sell it to MM. These were all ways to try to deliberatelu muddy the waters and avoid breaching the Profitability & Sustainability rules,

c) No one forced DCFC to not file their accounts with the EFL on time, it was their choice to file them late in an attempt (successful) to ensure points deductions were applied after the season thus staving off relegation for another season

d) It is likely HMRC could not chase (or sue) for some or all of the owing tax earlier due to the various Covid tax holidays and deferrals on offer over the last 18-20 months

e) HMRC are highly unlikely to be prepared to reduce their demand as they are not prepared to create a very expensive precedent amongst football clubs and others

f) our claim in the administration is perfectly reasonable and given they have not thrown it out; it appears the administrators accept it has some degree of foundation and legitimacy (this may or may not be at the behest of the EFL depends on which paper and which conspiracy theory you read)

g) WWFC/RC and the administrators will no doubt negotiate a settlement which I am guessing will likely be in region of £1.5-3m

h) The self admitted actions of others caused a clearly definable loss to WWFC. It is therefore absolutely right, reasonable and responsible for the directors of WWFC to protect the companies fiduciary interests as the directors of any other business would do.

i) It is rumoured that Ashley is already haggling with Gibson to get him to "reel his neck in" over the 'Boro claim - Ashley & Gibson go back a long way so this may well succeed.

j) NO ONE is suing DCFC at this point in time

P.S. I collaborated with/helped Raymond Snoddy at the FT when he uncovered & unravelled the spiders web of companies Maxwell had and used to defraud pretty much everyone but especially Mirror Group pensioners

k) what a complicated mess!

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, REDOXO said:

Just read this on the WWFC FORUM. I thought it was very sensible and well written from their perspective

 

Having spent half my career in insolvency related work I can tell you the following

a) no-one held a gun to MM's or DAFC's head and forced them to spend more than they could afford, this was a choice with obvious consequences if they failed to get to the promised land of the Premier League

b) Having failed to gain promotion the over spending chickens came home to roost which led to a conscious decision to change the amortisation method, take a loan from MDS, revalue the stadium & then sell it to MM. These were all ways to try to deliberatelu muddy the waters and avoid breaching the Profitability & Sustainability rules,

c) No one forced DCFC to not file their accounts with the EFL on time, it was their choice to file them late in an attempt (successful) to ensure points deductions were applied after the season thus staving off relegation for another season

d) It is likely HMRC could not chase (or sue) for some or all of the owing tax earlier due to the various Covid tax holidays and deferrals on offer over the last 18-20 months

e) HMRC are highly unlikely to be prepared to reduce their demand as they are not prepared to create a very expensive precedent amongst football clubs and others

f) our claim in the administration is perfectly reasonable and given they have not thrown it out; it appears the administrators accept it has some degree of foundation and legitimacy (this may or may not be at the behest of the EFL depends on which paper and which conspiracy theory you read)

g) WWFC/RC and the administrators will no doubt negotiate a settlement which I am guessing will likely be in region of £1.5-3m

h) The self admitted actions of others caused a clearly definable loss to WWFC. It is therefore absolutely right, reasonable and responsible for the directors of WWFC to protect the companies fiduciary interests as the directors of any other business would do.

i) It is rumoured that Ashley is already haggling with Gibson to get him to "reel his neck in" over the 'Boro claim - Ashley & Gibson go back a long way so this may well succeed.

j) NO ONE is suing DCFC at this point in time

P.S. I collaborated with/helped Raymond Snoddy at the FT when he uncovered & unravelled the spiders web of companies Maxwell had and used to defraud pretty much everyone but especially Mirror Group pensioners

Excellent summary.

[Hxj]

There is a lot of hot air going around currently, aided and abetted by some journalists who clearly don't research, about a reconstruction under the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Act 2020 (aka 'cross class cram down') and how this provides a loophole that Quantuma can exit Derby County from the Administration, not pay the debts and not suffer any consequences as the EFL have not updated their Regulations.

Firstly the 12 point penalty for entering Administration has already been applied.  Secondly any further penalty arises as a result of either not paying Football Creditors in full or not paying other creditors at least 25% immediately or 35% over a three year period.  It has nothing to do with how you exit Administration.

Secondly the reconstruction is not something you pull out of the air and impose on the creditors, it has to be sanctioned by a High Court judge.  What the legislation says is that where any class of creditor votes against the CVA and they would receive less in a Liquidation then a proposal may be imposed by the Court if they see it as just.  For a Reconstruction to give the outcome required, Football Creditors paid in full and all other creditors paid at least 25% upfront.

So a judge would need to hold that firstly 'Football Creditors' are a separate class of creditor distinct from other unsecured and non-preferential creditors and that special status elevates them above preferential creditors, contrary to all UK insolvency legislation ever enacted, on the basis that a group of people decided that that was convenient for them.

You would only get to a court case if HMRC objected to a CVA, and you can therefore assume that they would object to the Reconstruction proposal and you could rightly assume that they would appeal against any ruling by the High Court that they objected to.  As the legislation is new there is no doubt that any appeal would be heard.

The main problems here for Derby are this would all cost money, lots of it and time, lots of that too.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Talking of journalists, this is a nice balanced take. Not.

I expected better from one of his experience and standing.

That's not reporting, that's propaganda. Okay it's an opinion but I expected better.

Perhaps he should ask himself why it might be the case that Championship clubs and fans are so angry.

If they don't exit administration in the correct manner then a further - 15, and a season business plan next season.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Talking of journalists, this is a nice balanced take. Not.

I expected better from one of his experience and standing.

That's not reporting, that's propaganda. Okay it's an opinion but I expected better.

Perhaps he should ask himself why it might be the case that Championship clubs and fans are so angry.

If they don't exit administration in the correct manner then a further - 15, and a season business plan next season.

Quantuma were a bit bullish weren’t they when they got appointed!  I guess they get paid so they won’t care.

[Mr Popodopolous]

57 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Quantuma were a bit bullish weren’t they when they got appointed!  I guess they get paid so they won’t care.

Think they're trying to get the EFL Insolvency Policy etc amended to suit Derby, to test if their Insolvency Policy is relevant in the face of the amended Insolvency Regs.

Clearly Derby have learnt nothing would've thought a smidgen of understanding that goodwill will be important might have materialised. Looking at their fans below Henry Winter's Tweet those regulars on Social media still haven't gained an understanding of the EFL's requirements in these matters, appear to think - 21 and clean slate!

[Snufflelufagus]

If Derby do go bust and the results against them are void. How does that affect the league table? We'd lose 3 points as we beat them. Obviously depends how the other bottom teams faired against them as well 

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Talking of journalists, this is a nice balanced take. Not.

I expected better from one of his experience and standing.

That's not reporting, that's propaganda. Okay it's an opinion but I expected better.

Perhaps he should ask himself why it might be the case that Championship clubs and fans are so angry.

If they don't exit administration in the correct manner then a further - 15, and a season business plan next season.

Oh Henry. He's a clever one, posting this gets Derby fans onside, but he stops short of actually saying that more people should write to their MP. He stops short of blaming the Admins or EFL - in fact he simply blames Morris. A politician's post.

@Hxj thanks for the explanation regarding the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. A law I am not familiar with as it's been enacted since I stopped practicing English law. I've read the DLA Piper summary of it and it seems that the relevant part, the "cross class cramdown" is designed to prevent one single creditor from blocking an exit from insolvency. Seems fair, but I don't see anything in it to suggest it allows a company to exit administration freely and without paying a certain creditor. Also, as you rightly point out, going through this process involves the courts, and so that naturally involves time (two hearings I see) and cost on a scale that I doubt Derby can swallow. It would be a pyrrhic victory if any victory at all.

They are in this brutal cycle of needing to satisfy two sets of regulation if they want to continue their business. The EFL's football creditor rule may be more onerous than standard insolvency creditor waterfalls, it may be absurd in the face of them, but it is part of the rules that Derby must abide by if they want to not only be an operating company in England, but an operating company in England that runs an EFL football team. The EFL have to stand firm as otherwise they show themselves to be weak in the face of argument.  

DLA's paper on "cross class cramdown" is here https://www.dlapiper.com/en/uk/insights/publications/2020/10/restructuring-global-insight/restructuring-plan/

Ultimately, I personally think that Derby either have to get Gibson to accept a settlement, or to remove his Claim, or to allow the EFL panel to solve it, or they have to exit Admin and accept that they cannot be part of the EFL. So they remain an operating football club, and apply for membership of the non-league system. But I accept that they aren't going to get an investor to buy a non-league club and settle the other debts, and so that is phoenix club territory.

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Snufflelufagus said:

If Derby do go bust and the results against them are void. How does that affect the league table? We'd lose 3 points as we beat them. Obviously depends how the other bottom teams faired against them as well 

Two sides would go down, Barnsley and Peterborough both beat them as well so it's as you were. Reading would gain 2 pts on us, Cardiff 3, Hull 3.

Think Birmingham and someone else are below us but don't see them going down. Birmingham would also lose 3 pts.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Derby_Ram]

Afternoon all

There's a few other clubs forums I enjoy reading - this one in particular - and huge amounts in this thread are accurate.

As a Derby fan it's been a sobering time recently and the reality is whilst a great escape would be something we'd look back on for ever most of us just want a club, our club, to support next season.

The one bit I would like to correct - or clarify - is the vast amount of Derby fans do accept that Mel Morris is the reason behind the mess and could fix all this in two strokes: paying the HMRC and indemnifying any new owner against any claim by Boro or Wycombe.

Yes, you do still get people on twitter or some message boards who think the sun shines out of his backside but to say all our ire is directed at the EFL and not him (or Stephen Pearce our CFO who is still employed during admin) is inaccurate. There are more chants and abuse aimed at those two at games than the EFL.

Where we have an issue with the EFL (or maybe it's with Quantuma) is that the EFL and admins are releasing contradictory stories and for us it's vital our MPs or some other entirely independent body so we can flush out the real position and what needs doing (assuming MM doesn't do the decent thing. If anyone knows where he is please do share!).

There is a distrust of the EFL amongst fans which I do think is fair based on past events but ultimately we just want to know how we break the impasse between EFL/admins and will fight and engage whoever we can to do it.

As a club we ****** up. Our owner ****** up and the vast majority of fans went along for the ride. We've been punished so far. We need to exit admin correctly which will entail further hardships. But above all we just want a club next season.

So yeah it's a cathartic experience reading the thread but please don't think that the fans at the game are blaming anyone other than MM for this. We are. We also know though that in his continued absence and abdication we need the support of the EFL to survive.

 

[Hxj]

18 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Ultimately, I personally think that Derby either have to get Gibson to accept a settlement, or to remove his Claim, or to allow the EFL panel to solve it

However if they do get the matter resolved at minimum cost they then run into the HMRC debt problem ...

[exAtyeoMax]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Talking of journalists, this is a nice balanced take. Not.

I expected better from one of his experience and standing.

That's not reporting, that's propaganda. Okay it's an opinion but I expected better.

Perhaps he should ask himself why it might be the case that Championship clubs and fans are so angry.

If they don't exit administration in the correct manner then a further - 15, and a season business plan next season.

I thought the same. Shocking tweet

[slartibartfast]

1 minute ago, exAtyeoMax said:

I thought the same. Shocking tweet

I wonder if him (or his ilk) were so keen that City wouldn't die ,in 82 . nah **** 'em !

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Quantuma were a bit bullish weren’t they when they got appointed!  I guess they get paid so they won’t care.

Listening to Kieran Maguire / Price of Football pod….he said he’s spoken to people at Derby and that they are furious with Mel Morris. He then said surprised at Quantuma getting the gig as they’d only ever done one football insolvency before, but that none of the big insolvency companies would touch it with a barge pole!

Elephant in the room - Derby don’t own the stadium.  Why didn’t he put that into administration and sell the lot as a package.

Also Section 71 (???) allows an administrator to sell an asset linked to the company to help find a bidder.

Reference to Sheffield Utd’s out of court settlement from West Ham re Tevez in terms of the Wycombe / Boro compo claims.

Worth a listen @Mr Popodopolous, especially that last bit where if EFL judge claim not worthy, Wycombe and Boro could sue EFL and then all 71 clubs would be pissed off.  Suggests Mike Ashley or whoever should seek an indemnity from the administrators that they are not liable for the debts of Derby.  Mel could underwrite and it all goes away.

[Davefevs]

32 minutes ago, Snufflelufagus said:

If Derby do go bust and the results against them are void. How does that affect the league table? We'd lose 3 points as we beat them. Obviously depends how the other bottom teams faired against them as well 

Before Saturday’s round:

 

[ExiledAjax]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Suggests Mike Ashley or whoever should seek an indemnity from the administrators that they are not liable for the debts of Derby.  Mel could underwrite and it all goes away.

Admins will surely not give such an indemnity, even if it was separately underwritten by MM? Likewise for MM underwriting that indemnity is not so much different to just walking round to Gibson's house and leaving a suitcase full of cash on his porch. It would be some turnaround for MM to put himself on the hook for those kinds of claims? I'd be amazed.

I still think that indemnity plus insurance over it would be more realistic, although finding an insurer willing to cover it (at a premium that a bidder is prepared to pay) is another matter.

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Before Saturday’s round:

 

GD would also change wouldn't it.

[Hxj]

39 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Also Section 71 (???) allows an administrator to sell an asset linked to the company to help find a bidder.

Para 71 Sch B1 IA 1986 I think is the provision that he is referring to.  That allows an Administrator to sell property subject to a fixed charge to assist in the orderly Administration, as if the fixed charge didn't exist.  This is subject to a court order.

Not sure a judge would ever agree to someone selling property that belongs to someone else, where that company is not subject to any insolvency action.  

Plus you are back to time and costs in going to court.

[ExiledAjax]

6 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Not sure a judge would ever agree to someone selling property that belongs to someone else, where that company is not subject to any insolvency action.  

That's the issue so far as I see it. 

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, Derby_Ram said:

Afternoon all

There's a few other clubs forums I enjoy reading - this one in particular - and huge amounts in this thread are accurate.

As a Derby fan it's been a sobering time recently and the reality is whilst a great escape would be something we'd look back on for ever most of us just want a club, our club, to support next season.

The one bit I would like to correct - or clarify - is the vast amount of Derby fans do accept that Mel Morris is the reason behind the mess and could fix all this in two strokes: paying the HMRC and indemnifying any new owner against any claim by Boro or Wycombe.

Yes, you do still get people on twitter or some message boards who think the sun shines out of his backside but to say all our ire is directed at the EFL and not him (or Stephen Pearce our CFO who is still employed during admin) is inaccurate. There are more chants and abuse aimed at those two at games than the EFL.

Where we have an issue with the EFL (or maybe it's with Quantuma) is that the EFL and admins are releasing contradictory stories and for us it's vital our MPs or some other entirely independent body so we can flush out the real position and what needs doing (assuming MM doesn't do the decent thing. If anyone knows where he is please do share!).

There is a distrust of the EFL amongst fans which I do think is fair based on past events but ultimately we just want to know how we break the impasse between EFL/admins and will fight and engage whoever we can to do it.

As a club we ****** up. Our owner ****** up and the vast majority of fans went along for the ride. We've been punished so far. We need to exit admin correctly which will entail further hardships. But above all we just want a club next season.

So yeah it's a cathartic experience reading the thread but please don't think that the fans at the game are blaming anyone other than MM for this. We are. We also know though that in his continued absence and abdication we need the support of the EFL to survive.

 

 Nice to read something sensible.
 

On this page there is a lot of useful stuff that some less enlightened supporters of Derby County could use reading, along with the Derbyshire live journo who appears to not quite grasp the HMRC and EFL issues. (I’m not convinced about Quantama either). 
 

Good luck with your club! However My advice to supporters, creditors MPs etc is to get a lot less vocal about the rules of the EFL as applied to Derby for the future, as they are not new or targeting the club and start a campaign to get Mel Boy to stand up for his moral obligations toward the club the league and the sport!

I posted the thoughts of a Wycombe fan up this page which sums up the thoughts of their club and board and the situation 

Good Luck Again!
 

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Derby_Ram said:

Yes, you do still get people on twitter or some message boards who think the sun shines out of his backside but to say all our ire is directed at the EFL and not him (or Stephen Pearce our CFO who is still employed during admin) is inaccurate. There are more chants and abuse aimed at those two at games than the EFL.

Where we have an issue with the EFL (or maybe it's with Quantuma) is that the EFL and admins are releasing contradictory stories and for us it's vital our MPs or some other entirely independent body so we can flush out the real position and what needs doing (assuming MM doesn't do the decent thing. If anyone knows where he is please do share!).

Thanks for posting and welcome. We had a few Derby fans contributing earlier in the season, but they seem to have stopped. It's nice to get your perspective.

Firstly, you have my sympathy regarding the situation. As I posted earlier, I try not to tarnish all of Derby's fans with the same brush.

Secondly, on the section above, do you encounter much admission that if you view this situation objectively, the EFL are simply following their own rules? Rules which, if you want to participate in the EFL, need to be followed in addition to the normal insolvency laws that apply generally to companies in England. 

Finally, I would humbly suggest that your fans, when emailing their MPS, include a request that those MPs support Tracey Crouch MP's calls in the Fan Led Review to create an independent regulator. In doing so you could really help to ensure that fans of clubs that fail in the future (and there will sadly be such clubs) can benefit from a properly established "entirely independent body" to oversee matters, rather than having to write to MPs in the (in my opinion) futile hope that they can somehow influence things. Some of the things in that review could have helped stop Morris from, for example, selling Pride Park to himself.

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[chinapig]

56 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Where we have an issue with the EFL (or maybe it's with Quantuma) is that the EFL and admins are releasing contradictory stories and for us it's vital our MPs or some other entirely independent body so we can flush out the real position and what needs doing (assuming MM doesn't do the decent thing. If anyone knows where he is please do share!).

There is a distrust of the EFL amongst fans which I do think is fair based on past events but ultimately we just want to know how we break the impasse between EFL/admins and will fight and engage whoever we can to do it.

EDIT: this should be for @Derby_Ramof course.

Welcome and thanks for your reasoned thoughts. Can I ask for some clarfication?

On the first point above, Quantuma have been issuing bullish statements throughout. How many times have they claimed for instance that announcement of a preferred bidder was imminent and not delivered?

They now claim the EFL is acting against statute without specifying what statute and why. They also seem to have been rather taken aback that they have to prove they have funds for the club to fulfil its fixtures despite that being a given.

Essentially they seem to be saying what fans want to hear and based on some of his public statements not being entirely honest with Rooney. I would be questioning them ahead of the EFL. Indeed some of us would say the EFL dragged its feet for too long and let Morris string them along.

On the second point above what past events are you referring to that justify mistrusting the EFL? Are there specific ways in which they have acted against their regulations for instance or is this another version of the claim that there is a conspiracy against Derby?

Good luck to you in any event.

Edited January 17, 2022 by chinapig

[Derby_Ram]

Personally my email to my MP did mention the Tracey Crouch review on the basis that having something relevant an MP could link it to would do no harm. Others have taken a different approach in that whilst that is vital, in the here-and-now it is a specific issue to fix with time of the essence. However you'll find that most fans are on board with it.

I think anyone can drive a horse and cart through the EFLs rules. MM did by selling the stadium to himself and then rules get updated post the event to close a loophole. I also don't believe the EFL have updated their own rules post the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act and not everything within them fits the original purpose. I hate the prospect of a cross class cram down, and pray it becomes the last resort if the only alternative is liquidation, but if in the case the EFL blocks something a court has approved and other creditors support; what prevails? I don't want to go down that route but if further emphasises the need for an EFL which is fit for purpose.

To reply to the question of Wycombe - again the people I have sympathy for are the fans who haven't witnessed them in the Championship. As for the actual claim I personally don't have that much sympathy with it and feel we risk opening a Pandora's box: as a club we screwed up but a process got followed and we had our points deducted. This season. Did MM/Pearce mess around with delaying accounts? Yes. But also go back to the original EFL case which saw delays due to claims from of other clubs frivilous claims (Boro). So we cheated but not in a year WW were in the same division and our penalty was applied once due process had been followed. Impossible to prove but had we already have had points deducted I am sure last day of the season we'd have lost rather than scraping a draw. In that instance Wednesday would have stopped up so should they raise a claim too?!

Finally on the claims by other clubs - where does it stop? We lost in the Play-off final to QPR who failed FFP. Does this give Derby the right to recompense? Or Wigan who lost to QPR in the semi? What about the team that finished 7th and maybe could have got in the play-offs at QPRs expense? I don't know and for that reason primarily I personally think the club gets punished with their fines, pounts deductions, embargos or whatever but other clubs can't them claim. Whichever side of the fence you come down with on that on they'll be valid opposite viewpoints.

[Derby_Ram]

16 minutes ago, chinapig said:

On the first point above, Quantuma have been issuing bullish statements throughout. How many times have they claimed for instance that announcement of a preferred bidder was imminent and not delivered?

 

Totally agree about the admins. Unfortunately not willing to face up to local media and answer questions. Would love them to be open as possible and answer but it's not forthcoming. I do think without the Boro/WW cases we'd have a preferred bidder in place even though that doesn't guarantee we'd end up sorting this it's the next step. Either way they're not covering themselves in glory at all and I feel for Rooney who has been fed a load of bull and still working wonders. But, where we are as a club now, what is easier to gain traction with media, MPs and other fans? Highlighting the EFL who every fan is aware of as opposed to a bunch of Admins who 99% of people in Derby couldn't name let alone anywhere else. When you're desperate you'll do whatever it takes to get someone to take note and the last couple of days it seems to be beginning.

 

24 minutes ago, chinapig said:

On the second point above what past events are you referring to that justify mistrusting the EFL? Are there specific ways in which they have acted against their regulations for instance or is this another version of the claim that there is a conspiracy against Derby?

Where do you want to start?!?!

I could point to peculiarities in the original case brought against us but you'd accuse me of it being part of a conspiracy!

I will use Derby as a case in point though. Do you trust them as fit for purpose for letting the situation go on as long as it did? Do you think they did everything in their powers to support Bury and Macclesfield? If so I'll hold my hands up :).