Derby_Ram Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 4 minutes ago, Hxj said: But the real test is what is the open market rent, We already have a figure £3 million odd a year, see the Disciplinary Committee and League Appeal Panel decisions, Just over £1m was the agreed outcome post the panel decision in on basis of club only using it x days per year. Remains to be seen if any deal is based on us having full time tenancy. 3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Should have sold some in Jan 2022 then eh, when some seemingly reasonable offers were in situ! Better to get even not a perfect fee and accept the likelihood of League 1 than nothing at all! This is where you won't be surprised to learn that I do beg to differ . Honestly, what did selling Shinnie, Williams, Plange, a couple of youth team prospects, and not renewing Jags contract do? Dug the EFL out of a massive hole that's what No creditors have seen an extra penny because of it, and wouldnt have done had we sold others. All it did is drag the process out and got us to the end of the season when the money runs out and prevented the EFL worst case scenario of us going pop mid season. This is the extra hidden punishment over and above the -21 that possibly was the thing that did relegate us. If we'd sold someone extra for £1m in Jan do you believe creditors would get any more money? I don't, I just think what's happening now would happen 6 weeks down the line instead. I don't know how feasible it is but it's one thing I'd look to change about admin rules going forward - player sales = money for creditors and not just extending this period of lining admins pockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 12 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said: Just over £1m was the agreed outcome post the panel decision in on basis of club only using it x days per year. Remains to be seen if any deal is based on us having full time tenancy. This is where you won't be surprised to learn that I do beg to differ . Honestly, what did selling Shinnie, Williams, Plange, a couple of youth team prospects, and not renewing Jags contract do? Dug the EFL out of a massive hole that's what No creditors have seen an extra penny because of it, and wouldnt have done had we sold others. All it did is drag the process out and got us to the end of the season when the money runs out and prevented the EFL worst case scenario of us going pop mid season. This is the extra hidden punishment over and above the -21 that possibly was the thing that did relegate us. If we'd sold someone extra for £1m in Jan do you believe creditors would get any more money? I don't, I just think what's happening now would happen 6 weeks down the line instead. I don't know how feasible it is but it's one thing I'd look to change about admin rules going forward - player sales = money for creditors and not just extending this period of lining admins pockets. Am I missing something? The players got paid the ongoing suppliers got paid the staff footballing or non footballing got paid. I thought that was why the players had to be sold for current cash flow purposes and to comply with the rules that effectively say that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said: Just over £1m was the agreed outcome post the panel decision in on basis of club only using it x days per year. Remains to be seen if any deal is based on us having full time tenancy. £1.1m per year based on 100 days usage by/allocation to the Football club IIRC. However the fair rent for a transaction price was £4.16m per year but this included Club DCFC and Stadia DCFC. This would have been a consolidated rather than a club specific rent although not sure it'd be as high as £4.16m. Remember such companies are, would be consolidated for P&S purposes. Let's say club £1.1m per year, Club DCFC £1m per year and Stadia DCFC £1m per year. Club accounts=£1.1m but Sevco 5112=£3.1m per year. That's the important FFP number. 27 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said: This is where you won't be surprised to learn that I do beg to differ . Honestly, what did selling Shinnie, Williams, Plange, a couple of youth team prospects, and not renewing Jags contract do? Dug the EFL out of a massive hole that's what No creditors have seen an extra penny because of it, and wouldnt have done had we sold others. All it did is drag the process out and got us to the end of the season when the money runs out and prevented the EFL worst case scenario of us going pop mid season. This is the extra hidden punishment over and above the -21 that possibly was the thing that did relegate us. If we'd sold someone extra for £1m in Jan do you believe creditors would get any more money? I don't, I just think what's happening now would happen 6 weeks down the line instead. I don't know how feasible it is but it's one thing I'd look to change about admin rules going forward - player sales = money for creditors and not just extending this period of lining admins pockets. Not a bad idea that change but IIRC Buchanan, Knight, Lawrence and Sibley all attracted interest. Would have reduced the amounts required in terms of MSD loans at the very least. What about Football Creditors? Yes, Derby crashing out of the League mid-season would have been in nobody's interests. Would have caused absolute chaos although arguably if Mel Morris was declining to provide the correct financial guarantees pre August 2021 they shouldn't have been allowed to begin the season anyway. Nixon did suggest that Mel Morris was not providing assurances last August. Losing some of them for nothing wouldn't help either mind you, but Quantuma perhaps gambled that the Club would be a more attractive proposition staying up. Edited May 5, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 20 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said: Just over £1m was the agreed outcome post the panel decision in on basis of club only using it x days per year. Remains to be seen if any deal is based on us having full time tenancy. I agree that it was the figured mentioned - whether or not that was a real possibility remains open in my view - I honestly do not know what the answer is. Would a third party agree to that lease? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derby_Ram Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 (edited) I think you are. It's all come to a head now because the cash runs out now. If the cash ran out last Jan it would have all come to a head then. If the cash didn't run out for another couple of months I don't think we'd be where we are tonight with a preferred bidder, an EFL statement, and a potentially imminent takeover. (sorry - in reply to redoxo) Edited May 5, 2022 by Derby_Ram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 Was the £1.1m actually agreed by the EFL? It's far from crystal clear from the varied docs. IDC 1 states the Fair Value requirement for Club DCFC and Stadia DCFC rent wise to comply with the P&S rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derby_Ram Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Would have reduced the amounts required terms of MSD loans at the very least. What about Football Creditors? Yes, Derby crashing out of the League mid-season would have been in nobody's interests. Would have caused absolute chaos although arguably if Mel Morris was declining to provide the correct financial guarantees pre August 2021 they shouldn't have been allowed to begin the season anyway. By virtue of not selling players I also don't think additional MSD loans should have been taken. This trickle of money into the club has prolonged everything. A hard deadline without small transfer fees + MSD loans and I think we'd have been in pretty much the same position as we are today, just months ago. Time, or lack of, is great for focusing the minds. 4 minutes ago, Hxj said: I agree that it was the figured mentioned - whether or not that was a real possibility remains open in my view - I honestly do not know what the answer is. Would a third party agree to that lease? Yes *cough DCC cough* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 In summary: - CK appears to have bought the club out of administration, I.e. met the requirements to do so legally - now needs to satisfy EFL rules re membership, points deductions etc. Realky interested in the HMRC repayment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 EFL P&S rules. Add in a paper Fair Value rent along the lines of IDC 1 substitute for the actual if required. Don't transfer the Golden Share if Kirchner gets uppity. I believe the hard line should continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 Potentially interesting line in the EFL statement which I didn't appreciate at first. "Finalising the terms of a Membership agreement". Wonder what terms that might entail. Presumably if Kirchner doesn't like the terms, Derby might have a problem? 4.7.5 I saw referenced on the Derby forum in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 1 hour ago, Derby_Ram said: Yes *cough DCC cough* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 I'm sure a few of them on DCFCFans have the memory of goldfish when it comes to this saga and solely this issue. 1) If Mike Ashley took over the club would still be bound by an EFL Business Plan for x years, 2 or maybe even 3 in limited circs. They still couldn't splash cash quickly. 2) If they were kicked down to League 2 due to Insolvency I an sure that the EFL would impose very strong conditions as the quid pro quo for such a generous gesture. Again no early cash splashing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Constant Rabbit Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 Sorry to ask a thick question - and I have to say, the knowledge of some on here is amazing - so thanks for the info. Also to Derby Ram for being so calm about the situation of his beloved club My question @Mr Popodopolous @Hxj @Derby_Ram How much is CK worth (as in free funds to actually spend - not assets like buildings etc to sell for funds or borrow against) - actual money to spend on DCFC? I read somewhere (and I can't remember where hence the question) that it was somewhere around £60 million? Surely that is nowhere near enough to pay debts, wages, and sign new players, let alone rent and day to day costs? Second question (sorry) - if CK falls through AND MA doesn't swoop in at the last second to 'save the day' - what is the outcome? Is it liquidation, starting in L1 with a huge points deduction or further relegation to L2? Lastly - if CK fails to find funds - when does this all stop - when is the day a final decision is made? Thanks very much. PS: I hope things work out for Derby Fans - I remember us in 82 - I would not wish that on my worst enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I'm sure a few of them on DCFCFans have the memory of goldfish when it comes to this saga and solely this issue. 1) If Mike Ashley took over the club would still be bound by an EFL Business Plan for x years, 2 or maybe even 3 in limited circs. They still couldn't splash cash quickly. 2) If they were kicked down to League 2 due to Insolvency I an sure that the EFL would impose very strong conditions as the quid pro quo for such a generous gesture. Again no early cash splashing. Is there really an option that ends up with Derby in Lg2? Isn’t it Lg1 (membership intact) or Non-League (membership revoked)? What have I missed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Is there really an option that ends up with Derby in Lg2? Isn’t it Lg1 (membership intact) or Non-League (membership revoked)? What have I missed? It was mooted as a possible compromise in Jan 2022 by Nixon IIRC, but it feels unrealistic. It would fly in the face of precedent, potentially the EFL Insolvency regs although these are not properly in the public domain- surely a majority or a required majority % of clubs would have to vote on it? No guarantee that they would. Even if it did though, I see no way that the EFL would just permit them to splash the cash again soon after given such a break with precedent and a bending of the rules. It'd be totally wrong, especially with £36m in public money- the biggest ever HMRC debt for a football club with the possible exception of Portsmouth in 2010... Edited May 5, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 5, 2022 Report Share Posted May 5, 2022 (edited) Separate note. Good article by John Percy- an interesting line. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/05/05/derby-takeover-delayed-efl-stadium-ownership-one-sticking-point/ Quote Kirchner has already provided a business plan and information to fulfil the owner and directors’ test, but the EFL are seeking clarity over issues such as spending levels for next season. The lower and more muted the better I'd have thought. 2 year Business Plan post admin, advantage gained from offloading some or a good chunk of debt- therefore a strong Business Plan is a sensible solution- it's moral hazard in action. Would also help the club financially speaking as it would compel encourage them to spend sensibly for a given period. Edited May 6, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 6, 2022 Report Share Posted May 6, 2022 4 hours ago, billywedlock said: https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/kirchner-stadium-derby-mel-morris-7043997 The stadium issue . I watched his interview last night on this. Derby is allegedly quite similar to Kentucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 6, 2022 Report Share Posted May 6, 2022 (edited) Just thinking this through, to get it right- if all goes as it might. Derby have an HMRC debt of £36m- that gets cut by 65%. The MSD secured debt- MORE public money. Councils based on a national average unsure about Derby Council, get 23% of their income from central Government, That Council are owed money by the club too... That'd be bad enough and is indeed bad but there is more of course... While it is not financially directly to his benefit we believe, it gets him- Mel Morris off the hook- for the MSD debt. Possible talk of cross-guarantees, Personal Guarantees etc. The same Mel Morris who is a Derby City Council Business Ambassador... ...Plus who donated to the Tories in 2017 albeit once and at a local MP level. Quote This Regulation says the concept of conflicts of interests covers any situation where 'relevant staff members' have a direct or indirect financial, economic or other personal interest which might be perceived to compromise their impartiality and independence in the procurement process.9 Sept 2021 Possible?? 1-3, let alone the morality of the public money aspect. Leader of Derby Council is a Tory of course. With respect to the EFL I was thinking about this and have a starting point for a possible Business Plan for the next 2-3 years- and it needs to be reasonably punitive. Quote For every £1 of debt waived/gone in this process- ie HMRC, Unsecured creditors etc and possibly even MSD although that was a cross-guarantee so maybe not so much. Could also add in the differential for rent based on IDC 1 vs rent charged on Pride Park. For each £1 of debt waived, that is £1 less that Kirchner/Derby can spend on the side for the next 2-3 years. Simple cash terms maybe the best way although I wonder if % terms could also be valid. That goes for first team and management expenditure, ranging from signings to new contracts. Business Plan reverts to Hard Embargo if he goes against this. -15 still remains on the table, to be activated after 3 years if debt not repaid. I think both the moral hazard and deterrence factors are important moving forward as well as the actual money. PPS- nice to see Wycombe win last night. Two more wins for them and justice will be done. Wycombe Derby Edited May 6, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 6, 2022 Report Share Posted May 6, 2022 (edited) Good thread by Andy Holt though and take Mel Morris's words with as much salt as you like but he occasionally raised some good points. £16m per year average Championship loss is insanity. I know that's accounting and not FFP/Covid but as a starting point and perhaps pre Covid? Edited May 6, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 6, 2022 Report Share Posted May 6, 2022 (edited) One more thing after I did a bit of searching. EFL- or to give them their correct title the Football League- must not be allowed to backslide on this. Not one iota. No leniency either in respect of the current issues- no accounts released in the correct manner=no removal from the EFL Embargo service. Quote Can you confirm the penalties for Administration include an embargo for two years on signing players? How is this supposed to help find a new owner? This is totally counterproductive. Clearly, seeking to ensure the long-term future of the Club is the primary objective for all parties, not least for the supporters, and as such, a number of difficult financial decisions must be made in order to assist the Club in reducing its debt and operating sustainably. As part of any insolvency event, the appointment of Administrators initiates a number of measures to seek to reduce debt and to mitigate ongoing losses in order to assist the Club find new investment. During this process the Club is under embargo to prevent any additional staff costs being incurred. However, the EFL will work with the Club in relation to such ongoing measures, and in the event of any future investment and exit from Administration, will agree a financial plan in accordance with its rules. However, the fact remains that even with the requirement to meet the minimum dividend to unsecured creditors any Club taking insolvency action will be released from significant amounts of debt whilst all other clubs continue to honour their ongoing commitments. An ongoing embargo restriction as part of a monitored business plan seeks to balance the interests of all members of the League and the integrity of its competitions. https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/efl-response-to-ramstrust/ Am a believer in the primacy of the rules and organisation- of a rules based organisation- taking precedence over the needs of any one club. Quite a few heavily entitled fans as well, at least basing it on social media and the RamsTrust- "Can't you give the stadium back Mel"- £81m or at least the MSD security. "Ashley will spend big if he Ashley buys us"- nope moral hazard as above. The list of targets- would need a reasonably flexible business plan to say the least? Discuss. That post by Ashfield Ram is perhaps reflective of one who has not grasped the League 1 post admin Business Plan reality. League One AND a Business Plan to reflect and compensate for the the advantages gained via insolvency- anyone? Tbh the post below perhaps is more realistic? https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/39566-lg-1-appropriate-transfer-suggestions/page/6/#comment-2334246 Edited May 6, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never to the dark side Posted May 6, 2022 Report Share Posted May 6, 2022 https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-kirchner-rooney-morris-7048181 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted May 6, 2022 Report Share Posted May 6, 2022 18 hours ago, REDOXO said: Am I missing something? The players got paid the ongoing suppliers got paid the staff footballing or non footballing got paid. I thought that was why the players had to be sold for current cash flow purposes and to comply with the rules that effectively say that? 18 hours ago, Derby_Ram said: I think you are. It's all come to a head now because the cash runs out now. If the cash ran out last Jan it would have all come to a head then. If the cash didn't run out for another couple of months I don't think we'd be where we are tonight with a preferred bidder, an EFL statement, and a potentially imminent takeover. (sorry - in reply to redoxo) The cash was running out then that’s why the players were sold to ensure you continued to have cash and stay within the rules, was my understanding. (and in one case to stop the cash depletion in wages but ignore the continued debt to the former club) I still don’t follow, are you telling me that the players weren’t sold for cash and to stop cash depletion, there was some other nefarious reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted May 6, 2022 Report Share Posted May 6, 2022 2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Just thinking this through, to get it right- if all goes as it might. Derby have an HMRC debt of £36m- that gets cut by 65%. The MSD secured debt- MORE public money. Councils based on a national average unsure about Derby Council, get 23% of their income from central Government, That Council are owed money by the club too... That'd be bad enough and is indeed bad but there is more of course... While it is not financially directly to his benefit we believe, it gets him- Mel Morris off the hook- for the MSD debt. Possible talk of cross-guarantees, Personal Guarantees etc. The same Mel Morris who is a Derby City Council Business Ambassador... ...Plus who donated to the Tories in 2017 albeit once and at a local MP level. Possible?? 1-3, let alone the morality of the public money aspect. Leader of Derby Council is a Tory of course. With respect to the EFL I was thinking about this and have a starting point for a possible Business Plan for the next 2-3 years- and it needs to be reasonably punitive. I think both the moral hazard and deterrence factors are important moving forward as well as the actual money. PPS- nice to see Wycombe win last night. Two more wins for them and justice will be done. Wycombe Derby I mentioned this a few times earlier in the thread when The talk began about local councils kicking in loads of money. The conflict of interests of effectively paying off an employee/political appointee are staggering! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 6, 2022 Report Share Posted May 6, 2022 (edited) 17 minutes ago, REDOXO said: I mentioned this a few times earlier in the thread when The talk began about local councils kicking in loads of money. The conflict of interests of effectively paying off an employee/political appointee are staggering! I remember. The lack of coverage is quite curious, there has long been a political element to this Insolvency. Granted it could still work commercially but the potential conflict of interests is major. Central Government too although I've not really looked at the Derby City Council accounts but some sort of temporary tapering off of some of the Central funds should be considered for such sharp practice, or rediversion from Derby to HMRC IMO. Maybe £xm per year until such time as the gap between what is being mooted- 65% of £36m and the remainder has been paid off. Cut funding to the tune of £23.4m until the deficit made good- not per year in total but I dunno in 6 instalments? Cut funding minus the amount of interest from the loan if it is paid for on a Government loan returning to the Government...say £23.4m/6, £3.9m in funding per year cut but say £500k interest on a loan- that's £3.4m per year funding cut until HMRC have been repaid. Moral hazard in action! The numbers would stack up. Not that I am particularly comfortable with my idea in all honesty but their actions seem tin eared, tone deaf and smack of special pleading in this climate. In all reality I don't really know the answer and am not necessarily in seriousness advocating rediversion of funding but their actions seem unacceptable on the face of it. As I say it can work- Plymouth Council is a case in point but the sums were so much lower and I haven't looked into the finer detail but there doesn't seem to be the major conflict of interest on the face of it...that is not to say that it wasn't there but that seems like it was a transaction with less baggage. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/oct/18/plymouth-argyle-council-home-park Edited May 6, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 6, 2022 Report Share Posted May 6, 2022 (edited) On the rental point. Paragraph 72 and esp. 72 c) Derby's valuation won and their valuer won therefore this is a Fair Market Rent- from the very valuer who gave Derby the basis for the transaction. 79 a) and 79 b) Give a rationale for both the £4.16m and the £1m per year figure. However, 82 c)... They reneged it would appear on the agreement. I would be shocked if the EFL formally ratified this reneging- it appears to have been unilateral. I'd say the EFL have ample evidence to insist on that market rent- whether it's paper or real. To revisit for FFP purposes. For the club specifically but the group/consolidator? Certainly contrary to what Derby fans might say I don't see any definitive once and for all sign off. Do they? This is another big elephant in the room because Aston Villa via NSWE Stadium Limited, Birmingham initially at least via Birmingham City Stadium Limited, remains to be seen, Reading initially via Renhe Stadium Management Limited and Sheffield Wednesday via Sheffield 3 Limited all show the rent received (paper or real I don't care)- one company does not. Gellaw Newco 202 Limited and indeed Gellaw Newco 204 Limited. Derby would as per usual like to have their cake and eat it- I see no official EFL sign off or approval of the rent for P&S purposes. EFL should not rule out further charges if the accounts when finally received do not reflect whatever was agreed rent wise- further points, further punishment it shouldn't be ignored. What would be funny is if the rent for Pride Park was markedly lower than the Fair Value on there and pushed the overspending up- further charges and deductions please, either for new excess losses or for not complying with good faith if the Agreed Decision overrode it all. If they don't release accounts, remain under a hard embargo- via the Embargo Reporting Service and have it their way...the EFL have to give no ground. https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/202021/general-news-images/efl-v-derby-county--decision.pdf Edited May 6, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted May 6, 2022 Report Share Posted May 6, 2022 1 hour ago, Never to the dark side said: https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-kirchner-rooney-morris-7048181 So Leicester and Stoke are options for ground sharing and DCC are indeed negotiating the potential purchase of the stadium. That is ongoing though so Quantuma will either need to extend the exclusivity period or allow others to bid. The question is whether Kirchner will continue to fund the club during any extended period and if so for how long? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted May 7, 2022 Report Share Posted May 7, 2022 (edited) On 05/05/2022 at 21:03, Derby_Ram said: Just over £1m was the agreed outcome post the panel decision in on basis of club only using it x days per year. Remains to be seen if any deal is based on us having full time tenancy. This is where you won't be surprised to learn that I do beg to differ . Honestly, what did selling Shinnie, Williams, Plange, a couple of youth team prospects, and not renewing Jags contract do? Dug the EFL out of a massive hole that's what No creditors have seen an extra penny because of it, and wouldnt have done had we sold others. All it did is drag the process out and got us to the end of the season when the money runs out and prevented the EFL worst case scenario of us going pop mid season. This is the extra hidden punishment over and above the -21 that possibly was the thing that did relegate us. If we'd sold someone extra for £1m in Jan do you believe creditors would get any more money? I don't, I just think what's happening now would happen 6 weeks down the line instead. I don't know how feasible it is but it's one thing I'd look to change about admin rules going forward - player sales = money for creditors and not just extending this period of lining admins pockets. How is selling players to keep your club running diggingnthe efl out of a hole? The efl didn't cheat Derby did, The efl weren't responsible for Derby's reckless spending and illegal account practices The efl weren't responsible for not paying the hmrc there cheating the British tax payer out of money that could of been spent on the NHS Derby were Stop blaming others for your clubs mistakes you ******* Edited May 7, 2022 by Monkeh 1 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted May 7, 2022 Report Share Posted May 7, 2022 12 minutes ago, Monkeh said: How is selling players to keep your club running diggingnthe efl out of a hole? The efl didn't cheat Derby did, The efl weren't responsible for Derby's reckless spending and illegal account practices The efl weren't responsible for not paying the hmrc there cheating the British tax payer out of money that could of been spent on the NHS Derby were Stop blaming others for your clubs mistakes you ******* You may be shooting at the wrong target. @Derby_Ramis rather more sensible and informed than the kind of people who tend to post on the Derby forum. That's where you will find arrogance, special pleading and conspiracy theories, especially that it is all a plot against them by the EFL. Pathetically, they have blocked access to their forum from here. In a sense it is right to say the EFL were dug out of a hole in that Derby are favoured by the majority of football writers (because they used to be good decades ago and, you know, Brian Clough and stuff) as only a small minority have bothered to find out the facts and read the EFL regulations. Too much like hard work when they could be writing about the same old Premier League clubs. So if Derby had run out of money and been expelled the media narrative might well have been to blame the EFL. That would have been reinforced by local MPs as there is political capital in it for them. Whether that is @Derby_Ram's reasoning I don't know and I often disagree with them but you can at least have a debate with them. But maybe they actually mean it's all the EFL's fault, in which case your post stands and I withdraw all my comments above. Anyway, the money runs out this weekend so there are interesting days ahead! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 7, 2022 Report Share Posted May 7, 2022 https://theathletic.com/3297953/2022/05/06/understanding-derbys-stadium-impasse-council-ownership-msd-loans-and-playing-in-a-different-city/ One interesting snippet is that they would get a loan to purchase Pride Park, the council that is. Yet more central funding although this time the taxpayer shouldn't lose out. One possible source mentioned though is the Public Works Loan Board. Any idea how this fits with relatively recent legislation or similar? https://www.ashfords.co.uk/news-and-media/general/hm-treasury-stops-public-loans-to-council-s-for-commercial-property Expect you might have a view or insight @Hxj Could this not constitute borrowing public money with commercial property in mind. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 7, 2022 Report Share Posted May 7, 2022 Wise sages…what voting rights does Mel have in who buys the club, etc? A guy in this tweet thread, suggests his £125m shares means he can veto any CK deal??? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.