Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County


havanatopia

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Completely independent. 

Club adverts no different to any other google advert - targetted towards the user. David stopped them as soon as admin was announced.

The club at various times has invited people to supporter meetings. The recent few have had representatives from a range of 'supporter groups', such as Punjabi Rams, The Rams Trust, and of course DCFCfans. Earlier meetings during Mel's spell as owner invited a group of fans (only from the forum) as it is the largest supporter group, of which many other members of other supporter groups have accounts on it.

Rooney's comment was essentially saying we'd start preparing for next season, given 21 points pretty much means relegation. It would still be a reasonably strong team for us with all having already played first team games and all being classed as professional standing (with the exception of Williams who is a scholar).

Okay I take it back a bit then, row back a bit- club ads made me wonder but if it's independent I'll go with that.

Yeah makes sense I guess, I just wondered why the lack of criticism of the club at times in the recent periods, leading up to admin- there was a strong criticism of the EFL, Gibson, Couhig etc but a relative lack- relative not absolute- in the circs of the Derby hierarchy- and by hierarchy I don't include the ordinary staff or playing side, administration must be very tough for the ordinary staff in particular.

On a side note, I will though say credit to the bulk on there for condemning the Billy Sharp chants. FFP differences aside, perhaps I am quite harsh on some on there, and unduly so on my part.

Okay that makes more sense, I thought or was a bit puzzled as to whether it was a bit of brinkmanship at play in terms of "If you dock us the FFP points, there's no real point and perhaps we'll field the kids- and that wouldn't look good for the competition". Kinda thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Take a look at the first team squad and tell me what you honestly think the player wage bill currently stands at then?

 

Signed under £12.5k embargo: Marshall, Byrne, Jozwiak, Kazim

Signed under £4.5k embargo: Allsop, Davies, Jagielka, Steraman, Morrison, Baldock

Recent academy graduates: Ebosele, McDonald, JBrown, Watson, Hutchinson, Stretton

Longer term academy graduates (in 2nd or 3rd season): Buchanan, Bird, Knight, Sibley

Other: Roos, Forsyth, Bielik, Shinnie, Lawrence

 

You refer to the 17/18 wage bill, yet ignore who we've offloaded since. Vydra, Weimann, Shackell, Jerome, Bent, Baird, Ledley, Nugent, Butterfield, Blackman, Pearce, Johnson, Bryson, Bennett, Keogh, Olsson, Thorne, Martin, Anya, Huddlestone, Wisdom, Carson. you could probably count on one hand how few were on less than £20k pw.

When I talk of the wage bill I am talking the entirety of the club, ie the consolidated accounts inclusive of the tax and other costs associated with wages ie NI, PAYE etc- and the coaching staff too, possible that we are cross purposes in how the wage bill is measured. Rooney stopping playing will also have cut a cost.

Oh was there a £12.5k embargo in 2020? That perhaps changes things.

Then players who signed in 2018/19 and loanees last season and 2019/20, many of these will have left. Players such as Waghorn, Marriott, Jozefzoon, Evans etc. I've always thought more like £20m all told but that's the whole club/group as opposed to just the basics for the players. For the players and players basic it would of course be below £20m.

Taking the basics, quick maths suggests...

£12.5k pw embargo x 4, that is a sum total of £50k per week. £2.6m per year.

£4.5k pw embargo x 4 on 12 months, that is a sum total of £27k per week. Although two expire in Jan? £1,170,000 per year when factoring in 4 on 12 months and 2 on 6 months or thereabouts.

How much are academy grads on? Few grand a week each? Likewise how much might longer term academy grads be on?

The others, quick google searches give a sum total of maybe £70,000 per week. Although how accurate these sites are remains to be seen!

I would also add, Cocu and co- paid in a lump sum when sacked or over the remaining length of their remaining contract? If it's the latter that surely goes through the wage bill. 

If wages have come down so drastically tbh, then Covid or not it is still tricky to see how Derby are in a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this elsewhere- seems that RamsTrust had a meeting with the EFL.

Bit of special pleading or?

Clearly like the administrators and my post the other day, they won't say "well tbh, it's a fair cop, guv, yes we deserve the maximum".

All the same, it seems that the EFL did not agree with their take on certain issues.

An argument that the -12 for administration is a punishment and then to seek to dock points for P&S overspending would be double jeopardy- the EFL disagreed.

image.thumb.png.9123bdf9cf95f0bf51739452739fa1ae.png

It is not double jeopardy and while I don't wish to criticise a Supporters Trust, I certainly don't, they should know this fact. They are two separate processes and one is automatic for clubs who suffer insolvency events, the other is financial results or in this case, restated financial results base, They are among those who should know better tbh.

Applied for the integrity of the competition is spot on, so is the clarity in terms of what is and isn't double jeopardy. What MIGHT be double jeopardy is if they were punished for the 3 years to 2018, then 2019, then the combined average without resetting the individual losses to £13m like with Birmingham and possibly Sheffield Wednesday.

For example if you took the 2016/17 and 2017/18 losses into 2018/19 without adjustment that could be double jeopardy but if you took the 2018/19 on a restated number and assessed it at a £13m P&S loss and the prior 2 were reset to £26m in total if they exceeded it, that would be okay.

Admin and P&S as 'double-jeopardy' is a total red herring though. Then again this is unprecedented for the EFL in a sense because it's unheard of to get a side going into administration still with unresolved and outstanding P&S issues,

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw an interesting claim elsewhere- once Covid allowances factored out, once accounts restated in terms of amortisation and profit on disposal as a result being adjusted, and I can't spend long on this but once all that done, then Derby apparently posted a profit in both 2019/20 and 2020/21!?

That would be quite a gamechanger. In which case though, release the accounts- club and consolidated- as it is quite a turnaround.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw an interesting claim elsewhere- once Covid allowances factored out, once accounts restated in terms of amortisation and profit on disposal as a result being adjusted, and I can't spend long on this but once all that done, then Derby apparently posted a profit in both 2019/20 and 2020/21!?

That would be quite a gamechanger. In which case though, release the accounts- club and consolidated- as it is quite a turnaround.

Would love to see your workings!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Would love to see your workings!

Would be a good task, if it's such good news they should release them ASAP.

Was slightly confused by the claim of mitigating factors. Birmingham got one for being cooperative but Derby seem to have been anything but. The suggestion was 4 pts to 2018, 4 to 2019 and then profits thereafter...with 3 off or suspended due to the amortisation being in good faith!?

I might have a look tomorrow at the figures posted by @AnotherDerbyFan in Feb for amortisation combined with what we know to be Ffp losses losses in the 3 years to 2018 and to some extent 2018/19 and work from there.

One thing for sure, the EFL don't really have much of an incentive to rush it or be bounced into a bad deal IMO.

They can just keep the embargo rolling while issues unresolved and no new owner will want that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Arsenal owed £8m by Derby for Krystian Bielik as club step up search for new owner

Derby signed midfielder Bielik for a club record fee worth up to £10m in 2019 with only a small fee paid up front

By John Percy 1 October 2021 • 6:35pm

Krystian Bielik joined Derby in August 2019 

Arsenal are still owed £8 million by Derby County for former midfielder Krystian Bielik, as the Championship club step up their search for a new owner.

Prospective buyers for Derby will have to take on liabilities worth “tens of millions of pounds” and it is understood that one of Derby’s main creditors is Arsenal, after agreeing the Bielik sale two years ago.

Derby signed Bielik for a club record fee worth up to £10 million in August 2019, when Phillip Cocu was in charge, and the structure of payments enabled them to pay a small fee up front.

With only around £2 million paid in instalments so far, it means that any interested parties will have to accept inheriting the transfer fee for the Poland international.

Earlier this month Derby were late paying an instalment to Arsenal, with the Football League briefly adding another charge to their transfer embargo before the situation was resolved.

It is understood that Arsenal have been assured they will receive the money, with Derby’s administrators including the bill in financial discussions with possible buyers.

Bielik, 23, is currently recovering from a serious knee injury - his second since signing for Derby.

There is also money owed to Polish club Lech Poznan for winger Kamil Jozwiak, which takes the overall ‘debt’ on transfer instalments over the £10 million mark. 

Kamil Jozwiak's fee is also yet to be paid 

Jozwiak, another Polish international, was signed for £4 million in September 2020.

Derby’s financial problems also include the £26 million owed to HM Revenue and Customs but Cocu, who was dismissed by Derby in November, will not receive the £5 million owed in compensation after the club went into administration last week.

Administrators Quantuma have sent out a formal marketing document to interested parties this week as they seek to sell the club.

Quantuma, the business advisory firm, remain confident of a sale and have received approaches from more than six separate parties over a potential takeover.

Working with the club’s chief executive Stephen Pearce, Quantuma have put together a document including basic details over the club's position, with a demand for guarantee of funds before parties can view the finances in more detail.

Around a dozen staff members lost their jobs this week, but it is understood that current staff and players were paid their monthly wages in full on Thursday morning.

Quantuma are also in discussions with the Football League over the additional nine-point deduction for historical financial breaches and are hopeful of negotiating a lesser punishment, though it is thought unlikely the EFL will accept it.

Derby also moved onto one point after the 1-0 victory over Reading on Wednesday night and remain unbeaten at home this season.

Wayne Rooney, the manager, said: “It is a very difficult moment we are in but the players are giving absolutely everything, so all we can do is keep working, keep trying to pick up points. 

“I think they deserve a lot of praise, a lot of credit. Looking at the table now we are back into positive points. 

“It is never nice when you are on minus points, to turn that around so quickly they deserve a lot of praise for that."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/09/2021 at 18:16, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw this elsewhere- seems that RamsTrust had a meeting with the EFL.

Bit of special pleading or?

Clearly like the administrators and my post the other day, they won't say "well tbh, it's a fair cop, guv, yes we deserve the maximum".

All the same, it seems that the EFL did not agree with their take on certain issues.

An argument that the -12 for administration is a punishment and then to seek to dock points for P&S overspending would be double jeopardy- the EFL disagreed.

image.thumb.png.9123bdf9cf95f0bf51739452739fa1ae.png

It is not double jeopardy and while I don't wish to criticise a Supporters Trust, I certainly don't, they should know this fact. They are two separate processes and one is automatic for clubs who suffer insolvency events, the other is financial results or in this case, restated financial results base, They are among those who should know better tbh.

Applied for the integrity of the competition is spot on, so is the clarity in terms of what is and isn't double jeopardy. What MIGHT be double jeopardy is if they were punished for the 3 years to 2018, then 2019, then the combined average without resetting the individual losses to £13m like with Birmingham and possibly Sheffield Wednesday.

For example if you took the 2016/17 and 2017/18 losses into 2018/19 without adjustment that could be double jeopardy but if you took the 2018/19 on a restated number and assessed it at a £13m P&S loss and the prior 2 were reset to £26m in total if they exceeded it, that would be okay.

Admin and P&S as 'double-jeopardy' is a total red herring though. Then again this is unprecedented for the EFL in a sense because it's unheard of to get a side going into administration still with unresolved and outstanding P&S issues,

Double jeopardy was referring to the previous charge where we were found non-complaint to FRS102, then being penalised again for failing P&S. Personally, I see P&S as a contunuation of the original charge, even if it isn't officially viewed that way. 

Double jeopardy seems to have been thrown in there by someone who doesn't understand the whole picture.

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw an interesting claim elsewhere- once Covid allowances factored out, once accounts restated in terms of amortisation and profit on disposal as a result being adjusted, and I can't spend long on this but once all that done, then Derby apparently posted a profit in both 2019/20 and 2020/21!?

That would be quite a gamechanger. In which case though, release the accounts- club and consolidated- as it is quite a turnaround.

Profit or within the limits. I'll be surprised if it's the former. Before or after P&S resets for failed periods.

On that topic, are all 3 years reset to £13m, or just years which exceed that figure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/10/2021 at 21:15, AnotherDerbyFan said:

For example if you took the 2016/17 and 2017/18 losses into 2018/19 without adjustment that could be double jeopardy

Personally I've never understood that view.  The rules say that you measure over the set period and have a limit for that period.  If a club's spending control is so bad they have multiple breaches it's only their fault surely?

Any news on the appeal against the -12 points from your side?  I have heard nothing.

Oh and Derby are now on the Embargo list again for being in Administration!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/10/2021 at 10:29, Hxj said:

Personally I've never understood that view.  The rules say that you measure over the set period and have a limit for that period.  If a club's spending control is so bad they have multiple breaches it's only their fault surely?

Any news on the appeal against the -12 points from your side?  I have heard nothing.

Oh and Derby are now on the Embargo list again for being in Administration!

I agree to an extent, but not in this case. 

If Birmingham had exceeded limits for 2 periods in a row just because they wanted to spend more, they would have had no excuse and would rightfully be punished for both periods.
Our case is considerably different to that... trying to stay within the limits (even if using as many loopholes as possible) only to find out 5 years later that the actual budgets were considerably different to those used.

Haven't heard anything about an appeal - very doubtful we have.

We're permanent members of the list now... I think we've all accepted that ?

Edited by AnotherDerbyFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/10/2021 at 21:15, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Double jeopardy was referring to the previous charge where we were found non-complaint to FRS102, then being penalised again for failing P&S. Personally, I see P&S as a contunuation of the original charge, even if it isn't officially viewed that way. 

Double jeopardy seems to have been thrown in there by someone who doesn't understand the whole picture.

Ah okay, and apologies if I'm misinterpreting but you see it as the same charge but Part 1 and if applicable Part 2- kinda thing? Whereas other reports suggested that a charge for the amortisation would yield £100k, restatement etc and then if applicable there would be a separate charge for P&S.

Yeah agreed.

On 01/10/2021 at 21:15, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Profit or within the limits. I'll be surprised if it's the former. Before or after P&S resets for failed periods.

On that topic, are all 3 years reset to £13m, or just years which exceed that figure?

Maybe it was profit after P&S allowances. Those accounts would make for fascinating reading either way though...

I assume that it would be years that exceed- but it throws up unusual scenarios potentially, if T-2 was I dunno, a £20m P&S loss and then T-1 was a P&S loss of say £6m...that's still an aggregate of £26m so ideal conditions for a £13m target- do you reset then? Or if the aggregate was an extra £1m say, £27m- technically the reporting period going into the existing season is when aggregated either correct or easily adjustable but it's not a neat calculation. In theory though if the aggregate numbers for any club are in line with or exceeding £26m for T-1 and T-2 then I see no reason there shouldn't be a £13m target- if the combined numbers are less say £25m then the target for a club IMO should be a P&S loss not exceeding £14m for the existing season. It's probably more complex but I see business plans for this as what's in line with the existing headroom. Aggregate for T-1 and T-2=£26m, then stays as it is for £13m. Exceeding then reset accordingly, less than, then the club can spend up to the gap between £13m loss and the remaining headroom.

There's a slightly unusual thing as well, I saw on the Twitter account for Derby5hire- he posts a lot of interesting stuff, dunno if you're familiar. Seemingly Stephen Pearce is director of a new company called DCFC Licensing that has just arrived at CH. Under Derby County Football Club Limited- a company who are in administration.

On a general note, as for the appeal against the automatic administration deduction, IIRC Wigan's was announced formally within seven days of the notice, the fact nothing has been heard by now from any party would suggest not. Deadline passed surely.

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

Couple of other observations, one of them tbh is partially lifted from Derby5hire and his Twitter.

New company

How does a company in administration- in this instance Derby County- get assigned as a relevant legal entity to a new company or indeed would it be classed as a subsidiary?

Injuries and Professional Standing

Derby as I understand it are under the Professional Standing rule.

That is up to 23 players who have made one appearance in the relevant competition.

When they signed Jagielka and Baldock, especially the latter reports suggested that it was tied to the unavailability of Kazim-Richards. Bit of an emergency signing to January, and possibly Jagielka for Bielik- he too was until January.

Bielik was supposed to have a long term injury and so was to an extent Kazim-Richards.

If there are returns significantly ahead of time how does this cross over with the terms of the 23 of professional standing, in particular the two 'emergency' additions. I hope that the EFL will not sit idly by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so that I am clear tbh- ran out of time to edit- the bit that the EFL should be clear on, or clear in their mind on is the 23 squad size and Professional Standing- DCFC Licensing is neither here nor there in that regard IMO.

Baldock was more of an emergency signing than Jagielka IIRC.

Some rather bullish answers- once again- from their administrators as well.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Couple of other observations, one of them tbh is partially lifted from Derby5hire and his Twitter.

New company

How does a company in administration- in this instance Derby County- get assigned as a relevant legal entity to a new company or indeed would it be classed as a subsidiary?

Injuries and Professional Standing

Derby as I understand it are under the Professional Standing rule.

That is up to 23 players who have made one appearance in the relevant competition.

When they signed Jagielka and Baldock, especially the latter reports suggested that it was tied to the unavailability of Kazim-Richards. Bit of an emergency signing to January, and possibly Jagielka for Bielik- he too was until January.

Bielik was supposed to have a long term injury and so was to an extent Kazim-Richards.

If there are returns significantly ahead of time how does this cross over with the terms of the 23 of professional standing, in particular the two 'emergency' additions. I hope that the EFL will not sit idly by.

I interpretted the situation as the EFL allowing us to go up to 25 players on the understanding Kazim and Bielik will miss a 'considerable proportion of the season'
Bielik for example, picked up a similar injury at a similar time the season prior. He made his U23 return in October, made a premature return to the first team in November, before finally playing again in December. I expect the same sort of schedule again.
Kazim was supposed to be about 3 months (so mid-Nov). It's not unreasonable for those types of injuries to heal a bit quicker, so mid to late October is fair.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I interpretted the situation as the EFL allowing us to go up to 25 players on the understanding Kazim and Bielik will miss a 'considerable proportion of the season'
Bielik for example, picked up a similar injury at a similar time the season prior. He made his U23 return in October, made a premature return to the first team in November, before finally playing again in December. I expect the same sort of schedule again.
Kazim was supposed to be about 3 months (so mid-Nov). It's not unreasonable for those types of injuries to heal a bit quicker, so mid to late October is fair.

Could be the case tbh although I remember reports which suggested eg Kazim-Richards misses months and months, Bielik not returning until January so the devil might be in the detail, ie the specific nature of the permission and agreement between Derby and the EFL. 

Bielik December time sounds plausible, certainly a difference between returning to the grass, then training, fit, match fit and finally able to play consistently.

Possible I got wires crossed a little with some of these categories. The way you put it seems more reasonable. Otoh given the EFL v Mel scenario I couldn't rule out entirely a view that perhaps there was an attempt to pull a fast one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few other bits I've read today.

Arsenal have delayed the Bielik fee instalment, deferred whatever.

Cocu is an unsecured football creditor. As such it sounds like a new category has been invented this Autumn.

In an article.

Questions about how lenient HMRC might be debt wise, debate anyway.

The article also mentions that certain bits would need EFL approval or clemency, talking takeover options. 

The article is decent but the headline is perhaps ott. Cutting a deal or maybe restructuring over a longer period? With the usual HMRC interest rate of course.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10060109/Derby-Countys-future-hangs-balance-taxpayers-bail-club-say-analysts.html

One more thing I noticed 10 mins ago, MSD Holdings UK accounts are at CH. Accounts made up to 31st December 2020, wonder if it'll shed more light on the loans, terms etc when they're up.

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

One more thing I noticed, when having quick searches- said it was seven days ago and I rate his views on football and the business side very highly but a rare wrong forecast...

https://www.facebook.com/talkSPORT/videos/simon-jordan-gobsmacked-by-efls-appeal-over-derby-county-ruling/596563687700328/

Simon Jordan, once the EFL were appealing the amortisation ruling- that must have come as a bit of a shock to many.  His take was- okay the stadium issue was settled (rent maybe a different debate but anyway that would require something well down the line if at all), but his take was why are the EFL appealing this amortisation issue. Change the rules he said, and they have now tbh on Fixed Asset profits for P&S but yeah- that's very unlike him to predict it wrong but nobody is 100%.

I looked at a few of my old calculations earlier based on the figures provided by the Independent Panel in the hearing for P&S to 2018 and the figures provided by @AnotherDerbyFan haven't looked in great depth at it all again and I forecast at one point on restated figures a £3.8m overspend to 2018 or in and around that number...

...Which coincidentally is a 4 point deduction, which was what Morris claimed on his interview that once restated to 2018 a 4 point deduction might have been the outcome. Unsure if he put the actual overspend £ number out there but sure he said 4 point deduction.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Few other bits I've read today.

Arsenal have delayed the Bielik fee instalment, deferred whatever.

Cocu is an unsecured football creditor. As such it sounds like a new category has been invented this Autumn.

In an article.

Questions about how lenient HMRC might be debt wise, debate anyway.

The article also mentions that certain bits would need EFL approval or clemency, talking takeover options. 

The article is decent but the headline is perhaps ott. Cutting a deal or maybe restructuring over a longer period? With the usual HMRC interest rate of course.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10060109/Derby-Countys-future-hangs-balance-taxpayers-bail-club-say-analysts.html

One more thing I noticed 10 mins ago, MSD Holdings UK accounts are at CH. Accounts made up to 31st December 2020, wonder if it'll shed more light on the loans, terms etc when they're up.

With a backdrop of increased personal taxation and rising NI and a country that has spent massively during the pandemic, you have to wonder how much appetite there is from anyone to encourage HMRC to accept reduced terms.

It really isn't a good luck, knowing that they have this debt having spent tens of millions paying average players a fortune.

Time to pay is one thing, writing off a large chunk of money is something else.

That said, as a tax payer, I would rather HMRC received 10mil than nothing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

That said, as a tax payer, I would rather HMRC received 10mil than nothing.

HMRC's published policy is interesting - VAS help sheet (publishing.service.gov.uk) - it applies to CVAs not Administrations but the following paragraph is interesting:

Rejecting a voluntary arrangement

We are also likely to reject a voluntary arrangement where there is evidence of:

• any proposal by any member of any organisation that requires debts owed to its members, to be paid in full, whether inside or outside of the arrangement or before or after the completion of the arrangement when all other unsecured creditors will become bound to accept a compromise of their debt. Here ‘members’ includes any prescribed associate(s) or other creditor(s) specified by the organisation

 

My personal view is looking at the matter from a different angle - how valuable is Derby's membership of the EFL?  If HMRC fail to get full payment and force the company into Liquidation it will send a very strong message to other clubs as to what will happen.  They may loose £20 million this time around, but how much more will they recoup in the long run if clubs understand that Liquidation is the ultimate outcome of failing to pay HMRC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I looked at a few of my old calculations earlier based on the figures provided by the Independent Panel in the hearing for P&S to 2018 and the figures provided by @AnotherDerbyFan haven't looked in great depth at it all again and I forecast at one point on restated figures a £3.8m overspend to 2018 or in and around that number...

...Which coincidentally is a 4 point deduction, which was what Morris claimed on his interview that once restated to 2018 a 4 point deduction might have been the outcome. Unsure if he put the actual overspend £ number out there but sure he said 4 point deduction.

I simply don't believe that this is the whole story.  Three main reasons:

  1.   Firstly Morris claims this;
  2.   Was there not a £20 million amortisation hit in 2019 - I know that this will have unwinded to some extent;
  3.   If it was all about just 4 points it really should have been sorted far earlier than now.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I simply don't believe that this is the whole story.  Three main reasons:

  1.   Firstly Morris claims this;
  2.   Was there not a £20 million amortisation hit in 2019 - I know that this will have unwinded to some extent;
  3.   If it was all about just 4 points it really should have been sorted far earlier than now.

Agree that this doesn't feel like the whole story. My interpretation was that the equivalent of a 4 point deduction was solely in the 3 years to 2018 after restatement etc.

That doesn't factor in the 3 years to 2019 or subsequent periods.

As you say a significant impairment to 2019 and even without that, this was the new evidence case but even without that then the consolidated accounts to 2019 using Derby's method was a £30m loss based on the Written Reasons last August.

The different methods of amortisation posted months ago by @AnotherDerbyFan

This combined with what we know to 2019 is a starting point for me but I've not really looked it up in depth for a while.

The impairment in 2019 only kicks in without recalculated amortisation IMO.

The years between 2015/16 and 2018/19 see an increase in amortisation and the years from 2019/20 to present see a decrease when switching from Derby way to straight line.

It's a massive mess and how do we calculate to 2019 if the 3 years to 2018 is failed.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

With a backdrop of increased personal taxation and rising NI and a country that has spent massively during the pandemic, you have to wonder how much appetite there is from anyone to encourage HMRC to accept reduced terms.

It really isn't a good luck, knowing that they have this debt having spent tens of millions paying average players a fortune.

Time to pay is one thing, writing off a large chunk of money is something else.

That said, as a tax payer, I would rather HMRC received 10mil than nothing.

Isn't there interest that accrues on HMRC debt- or does that go out the window with time to pay?

Agree it isn't a good look, although I wonder if certain Derbyshire MPs will lobby about it pushing for some clemency...levelling up all that. Just speculating though!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WarksRobin said:

 

The bit I don't get about the MSD stuff, well there are a few bits but whether that £15m is the sum total of all the loans/charges between MSD and the club plus of course Gellaw Newco 202 or just one of them...because there was one in August 2020 and one in October 2020.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The bit I don't get about the MSD stuff, well there are a few bits but whether that £15m is the sum total of all the loans/charges or just one of them...because there was one in August 2020 and one in October 2020.

Could this be down to the use of the word “Derby County” as opposed to the myriad of companies in play?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Could this be down to the use of the word “Derby County” as opposed to the myriad of companies in play?

Yeah true...the administrators will definitely earn their cash here, it seems a proper tangled mess.

One possibility perhaps is that Mel keeps paying it off if it's the one secured against Pride Park, and charges Derby a significant rent to match the repayment schedule.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Isn't there interest that accrues on HMRC debt- or does that go out the window with time to pay?

Interest is still payable on time to pay.  But clearly any compromise will take into account the total liability including interest and late payment penalties.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The bit I don't get about the MSD stuff, well there are a few bits but whether that £15m is the sum total of all the loans/charges between MSD and the club plus of course Gellaw Newco 202 or just one of them

The MSD accounts state simply that "one of the underlying borrowers associated with a £15 million loan held as of year end, entered into administration."

I would say that the total MSD exposure to The Stadium Group and The Football Group was £15 million (plus interest and costs).  No one in the outside world has seen the loan documentation and so no one knows who the actual borrower was.

The decision of the directors of the football club to put that company into administration triggered the rights of MSD to appoint Administrators even if the football club had no debt due to MSD because of the  the legal charges put in place.

Edited by Hxj
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...