Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby Deserve Relegation; Are the Football League going to bungle this one too?


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The article is contradicting itself….say £13.5m for a few months (assume to January) but headline says season.

Thanks- had only read it quickly and not properly tbh, that's a good point.

It's interesting insight but still leaves a few unanswered questions. Wages are a key but by no means the sole running cost of a club.

27 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Didn't the administrators say they needed to raise a £5m loan to get to January?

I previously read that they had enough cash to last until January, seems pretty unclear in any case.

25 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

As someone who is interested but hasn't been following it in detail, are Derby likely to get a further points deduction this season?

See no reason why not, though my preferred solution would be to have it 'bite' at the time that it takes most effect. Application at the earliest opportunity should hole their survival in the Championship chances below the waterline but.. can't be bothered to get a flowchart up...

  1. If Derby stay up by less than 9 pts then you add it in May- down you go!
  2. If Derby go down then you place it in League One- down to the bottom of League One you go!
  3. If Derby stay up by in excess of 9 pts, then you add it to the start of 2022/23- in other words you start on -9 and under the EFL business plan that's part of the package.

If stay up by 9 pts, then which season would depend on whether they go down on GD.

Always believed that points deductions should apply at the time they have most effect, but probably my scenario wouldn't be possible- so it and along with Reading's, should be added at the earliest opportunity.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What @Hxj said a while ago rings true- Forest fans of late anyway, make my approach in some respects to Derby look fairly light hearted- a few posts off their forum lately.

Despite the selective vision a few on DCFCFans have I don't want them to go under. I want them to suffer, absolutely I do, but going under a step too far. I have suggested in anger that I would, or certain other things that I regret and indeed in response to some of the village idiots who frequent DCFCFans- not all but a % fit that description- but deep down, nah suffering is acceptable.

image.thumb.png.0f44063977b52ba94473138086ccaaa5.png

The last page of that thread makes for funny reading.

https://www.forestforum.co.uk/threads/44511-The-demise-of-Wayne-Rooney-s-D***y-County-(in-Administration)/page611

DCFCFans should have a byline as you go onto the site...

"Welcome to DCFCFans- if you are from a local village, you maybe in luck- as we know in Derbyshire, 5 or 6 appear to be missing their idiots, including the home of the administrator/head of the site". Well a bit less clunky but something to work with.

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

The victimhood is rolling on I see...

I will seek to find the full quotes.

Plus, seems Derby fans were blaming the EFL- not just online views then, but chants of "Eff the EFL" in the away end at Preston Saturday.

I wonder when the majority will grasp that their current position is largely the fault of Mel Morris and Stephen Pearce, plus that they might need some good will at some stage.

Found this from the time it was announced last September that the EFL were due to appeal the verdict.

119037372_3525385270825573_3340599684826225252_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=Bo-D0dkffa0AX-o-Axj&_nc_ht=scontent-lcy1-1.xx&oh=8ca8489b2ed395a4f0e748929ea322ec&oe=6191FB5C

Aged well!! 🤣🤣

Not going to get irate but they really deserve all they get on current trends, don't they?

Interested to know why they think they are being singled out when Bury seemed not to even get that privilege, Bury were suspended in early August IIRC and kicked out within a month- give or take. Proof of funds was a deal breaker in their case was it not. Granted Bury were not in administration, but back in August, did Mel show proof of funds for the season- if not then why were they allowed to start the season.

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

Putting the general criticism aside for a second.

Mel obviously gets plenty of blame but to what extent is Stephen Pearce as the CEO culpable? All speculation of course, and I'm sure @AnotherDerbyFan would have some insight/views- would he have been pushing, guiding the club in pursuit of these loopholes as a qualified accountant or more a case of doing the owner's bidding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

would he have been pushing, guiding the club in pursuit of these loopholes

My understanding is that he was standing at the front cheering the army on.  All lambs to the slaughter in the end.

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

According to reports, £28m- although reports seem to range from £20m at the lower estimate to £28m in total so it's not certain the full amount.

It's interesting isn't it @REDOXO the EFL are the dastardly ones to blame in parts, indeed seen it on Twitter as well- how dare the EFL request that they have the funding to fulfil their requirements for the season? Lots of Derby fans on Twitter didn't like that but by no means all. Further, I don't see how a new owner can just start spending again- is there not some kind of requirement for a business plan to be agreed by new owners? Although I guess there is spending and spending...

Indeed, if not for the administration bit, surely new owners would still be bound by the FFP issue which means a) A likely deduction and b) A business plan of some sort.

Then there's the part about the individual components of the embargo- IIRC one is for accounts not submitted to the EFL, one is for accounts not submitted to CH and one is for accounts not submitted for FFP reasons- administration or not, I don't see how you can remove those charges until satisfied and when I say satisfied, I mean until resolved to the EFL's satisfaction.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And presumably the HMRC debt is increasing by the week/month, i.e. every time someone is paid, as I assume that the administrators aren't immediately weighing over the Income Tax and NI deductions, which for the high earners would be over 50% of their wages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone give me the cliff notes?

 

12 pts this year and 9 next?

 

@Mr Popodopolous

4 minutes ago, zippycar said:

And presumably the HMRC debt is increasing by the week/month, i.e. every time someone is paid, as I assume that the administrators aren't immediately weighing over the Income Tax and NI deductions, which for the high earners would be over 50% of their wages?

Is your avatar Precious McKenzie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/10/2021 at 17:01, Davefevs said:

The article is contradicting itself….say £13.5m for a few months (assume to January) but headline says season.

A few months being the end of the season.

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The victimhood is rolling on I see...

The penalty decisions against us is atrocious though. 2 stonewall penalties vs Forest and another vs Preston spring to mind. The second penalty shout vs Preston looked more like a loss of balance than a foul. There have been a couple other strong shouts this season, and quite a few soft ones.. yet not a single given. You'd expect these things t even out somewhat, but we do tend to be on the wrong side of the decisions a lot more than the decisions being in our favour.

The ref vs Preston was one of the worst displays I've ever seen, missing obvious fouls against both sides. A Preston player got clipped on the edge of their box as they were making a breakaway... no foul and Derby have the ball to start another attack. Earlier in the game, Knight knocked the ball past the defender, who made no attempt to play the ball but blocked Knight off from getting on the end of it and knocked him to the floor. Again no foul given, but this time Preston have the ball to start an attack of their own.

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I will seek to find the full quotes.

Plus, seems Derby fans were blaming the EFL- not just online views then, but chants of "Eff the EFL" in the away end at Preston Saturday.

Nothing new. That been chanted at every game since the original charge.

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

I wonder when the majority will grasp that their current position is largely the fault of Mel Morris and Stephen Pearce, plus that they might need some good will at some stage.

Found this from the time it was announced last September that the EFL were due to appeal the verdict.

119037372_3525385270825573_3340599684826225252_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=Bo-D0dkffa0AX-o-Axj&_nc_ht=scontent-lcy1-1.xx&oh=8ca8489b2ed395a4f0e748929ea322ec&oe=6191FB5C

Aged well!! 🤣🤣

Not going to get irate but they really deserve all they get on current trends, don't they?

Interested to know why they think they are being singled out when Bury seemed not to even get that privilege, Bury were suspended in early August IIRC and kicked out within a month- give or take. Proof of funds was a deal breaker in their case was it not. Granted Bury were not in administration, but back in August, did Mel show proof of funds for the season- if not then why were they allowed to start the season.

 

11 hours ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

Anyone give me the cliff notes?

 

12 pts this year and 9 next?

 

@Mr Popodopolous

Is your avatar Precious McKenzie?

12 points this year, minus however many the appeal panel see fit (anything from 0 to 12), plus however many for P&S. I'll be very surprised if there is any deduction next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I'll be very surprised if there is any deduction next season.

The Derby County Football Club still needs to be in the EFL for that to happen.  I'm still not convinced that the club will be.

Looking back on the 2018 accounts the company had net assets of £122 million or thereabouts, we also know that by January 2020 the company couldn't pay HMRC.  That's a serious change on fortunes all pre-coronavirus.

Approval of the Admininistration proposals is likely to come down to the vote of HMRC.  HMRC's published position on voting in Company Voluntary Arrangements, different I know but a similar process, is here.

VAS help sheet (publishing.service.gov.uk)

The relevant text states:

Rejecting a voluntary arrangement
We are also likely to reject a voluntary arrangement where ...
     • 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

The 'Football Creditors' arrangements fall squarely within that bullet point.

If HMRC exercise their vote in this way then all debts of the Club will need to be paid to remove it from administration.  Is someone really going to pay that amount for the club?

So I still see Liquidation of the club as a significant possibility. 

We will probably have a better understanding of the position in the week commencing 15 November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

Is your avatar Precious McKenzie?

Very much so TCR and I think quite an iconic image of Bristol's most famous and smallest (4' 9") weightlifter.

Was fortunate enough to meet him at the Empire gym, where he would always visit when over in the UK and he even gave me some tips.

Having Googled him today I found this clip about how the photo came about and so thanks for the prompt, as I didn't know when and where it was taken.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/80762268/the-night-i-lifted-muhammad-ali-kiwi-hero-precious-mckenzie-remembers-the-greatest

 

preciousmeetsali01.jpg

preciousmeetsali02.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/10/2021 at 13:01, AnotherDerbyFan said:

The penalty decisions against us is atrocious though. 2 stonewall penalties vs Forest and another vs Preston spring to mind. The second penalty shout vs Preston looked more like a loss of balance than a foul. There have been a couple other strong shouts this season, and quite a few soft ones.. yet not a single given. You'd expect these things t even out somewhat, but we do tend to be on the wrong side of the decisions a lot more than the decisions being in our favour.

The ref vs Preston was one of the worst displays I've ever seen, missing obvious fouls against both sides. A Preston player got clipped on the edge of their box as they were making a breakaway... no foul and Derby have the ball to start another attack. Earlier in the game, Knight knocked the ball past the defender, who made no attempt to play the ball but blocked Knight off from getting on the end of it and knocked him to the floor. Again no foul given, but this time Preston have the ball to start an attack of their own.

Well I can point to some poor and unlucky decisions in 2018/19, ranging from outright incorrect to debatable. Would be interesting to see these again, and not just talking in terms of penalties but officiating in general- we have not been awarded a penalty in the League since...31st October 2020 IIRC. Now granted post October 2020 until about May 2021 we didn't create much and have been slipping back again in that regard after a promising start since the restart but we have not received many at all in recent seasons. Not a conspiracy though I do believe officiating at this level isn't great- I remember reading articles or snippets last season that suggested Championship clubs wanted emergency meetings about the standard of officiating/referees. Will try to find these.

Disallowed goals- wrong calls

  1. Derby away- Weimann, December 2018 offside.
  2. Nottingham Forest away- Weimann, January 2019- offside.
  3. QPR home- Pisano, February 2019- a perceived foul. Having said that we got a soft penalty late on...so it evened out.
  4. Aston Villa away- Weimann, April 2019- offside. At 0-0 and would have broken the game open, we at that time- perhaps still are- a counterattacking side on the road so it would surely have helped.

Other bad luck

Norwich home- Tettey, December 2018- was on a yellow card. Got his second booking and his third- maybe his fourth or at least tackles that should have led to such. One of them was at 1-1, one was 2-1 to us- no 2nd booking materialised and he was substituted in time.

Dodgy penalty

Aston Villa away- April 2019 Again at 0-0, they were awarded a poor poor penalty. See my post about the strategy and how it broke the game open, if the correct refereeing call had been made.

Miscellaneous and debatable

  1. Leeds away- Brownhill- November 2018- He got a second yellow that was harsh or it was the case that one of the two was, just as we were growing into the game at 0-0 after a bad run. Now Leeds under Bielsa an excellent side and we may have lost in any case but you never know.
  2. Leeds home- Casilla- March 2019- Could have been sent off although I don't recall the incident terribly well.
  3. Derby home- Huddlestone and Semenyo, April 2019- Now I've no argument with the Semenyo red but vaguely recall that Huddlestone perhaps could have gone- but did not.
  4. Hull away- Sure we had a goal disallowed wrongly for offside although we then got one in our favour same game so it evened out. There was some big error that quickly evened out anyway.

Last season, I recall reading on here that for your side Bielik should have been sent off v Rotherham in Rooney's first game. He was not, and then he scored the winner v Bournemouth a match or 2 later.

I recall last season we had two goals go against us when players down with head injuries or similar, maybe more than 2 but one v Bournemouth at home and one at Norwich- thought play being stopped in that scenario was not uncommon.

Putting all that aside, the amount we hit the woodwork and at key times in tight games- that alone perhaps should have seen us get into the top 6, refereeing excuses aside.

On 19/10/2021 at 13:01, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Nothing new. That been chanted at every game since the original charge.

That's fairly incredible tbh. A certain level of cognitive dissonance or belief that rules should not apply? Or am I being unfair and would it be the case at any club. I think the jury is out either way.

Amazing in some ways that they blame the EFL for a logical application of regulations that was the consequence of the mismanagement by the 2 wise men at the top of the club.

I'll concede that I've not seen the exact comments by Rooney, possibly taken out of context- dunno if there's a link to a transcript/video?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I believe that I have found the comments in q- interested to know what everyone thinks. Can't be bothered to write the context in the article, just the words.

Quote

"Why are we not getting big decisions?

"I'm sick of standing here every week complaining about officials not giving us anything.

"Maybe someone from the EFL or referees' association can come and speak with me about it.

"I don't know whether it's a backlash with everything that's going on at the club or it's what's happened in the past

"I thought there were two clear penalties for us. The challenge on Festy, well the defender is never goalside and eases into the back of him.

"And the handball, well I think that's a penalty".

I think his argument or hints of a conspiracy are without foundation.

Lee Johnson said here a couple of years ago that he had a number of letters from referee assessors, apology letters basically from over the years. Now there is no refereeing agenda vs our club, as there is no agenda vs Derby IMO.

Oh wait- maybe there is a conspiracy- Rick Parry, Trevor Birch, Kieran Maguire, Matt Hughes, John Percy at times for a laugh given his Forest ties, have all persuaded or bribed the referees to rule against Derby- and me of course, always me moaning away.

FWIW- there isn't, I'm just making light of ideas that there might be any grand cabal, who convene in secret plotting how to Derby down.

PPS- The EFL don't even much care for Kieran Maguire from what he himself has said before, so yes- another brick in the wall loosened.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sense of entitlement is nauseating- wonder if she, the MP Pauline Latham, has critiqued the mismanagement by Mel and Stephen.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38540-english-football-league-board-grave-concerns-of-two-appointments/

Complaining to an MP about Risdale and the Middlesbrough CEO being on the EFL club reps.

Erm one, they are democratically elected by their peers- secondly, did anyone complain to an MP about a certain Stephen Pearce being elected.

That's Pauline Latham the MP if anyone wants to let her know what they think of it.

That said, god knows why Risdale with his insolvency track record was voted on.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think his argument or hints of a conspiracy are without foundation.

But that doesn't stop another one going, all the more silly as www.dcfcfans.co.uk get going again.

Some poor lost soul is now complaining to not their MP about the 'appointment' of Risdale (PNE) and Bausor ('Boro) to the EFL Board under the title

  • English Football League Board Grave Concerns of Two Appointments

They state that

  • The second concern I have is over the appointment of Neil Bausor to the EFL board, who is currently the CEO of Middlesbrough Football Club. It is widely reported in the media of legal action against Derby County from Middlesbrough Football Club I believe there is a possible conflict of interest in this appointment.

Can someone (@AnotherDerbyFan?) point out to them that both were Elected by the Championship clubs to be their representatives on the Board.  And can someone from DCFCfans explain how having Bausor on the Board is wrong, but having their very own Pearce was not an actual conflict of interest and perfectly acceptable.

Total nonsense. 

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hxj said:

But that doesn't stop another one going, all the more silly as www.dcfcfans.co.uk get going again.

Some poor lost soul is now complaining to not their MP about the 'appointment' of Risdale (PNE) and Bausor ('Boro) to the EFL Board under the title

  • English Football League Board Grave Concerns of Two Appointments

They state that

  • The second concern I have is over the appointment of Neil Bausor to the EFL board, who is currently the CEO of Middlesbrough Football Club. It is widely reported in the media of legal action against Derby County from Middlesbrough Football Club I believe there is a possible conflict of interest in this appointment.

Can someone (@AnotherDerbyFan?) point out to them that both were Elected by the Championship clubs to be their representatives on the Board.  And can someone from DCFCfans explain how having Bausor on the Board is wrong, but having their very own Pearce was not an actual conflict of interest and perfectly acceptable.

Total nonsense. 

Excellent. You put it better than me- shame that MP didn't show concern when it was obvious that they were being run badly, where was her concern when no accounts released for 2 years etc.

Last line sums it up- 'Total nonsense' it is. There are some sensible posters on there who know better, hopefully one of them will point out the fact that they were democratically elected...as was Mr. Pearce during the FFP investigation- this last bit shows that a conflict of interest is highly unlikely.

Would you say DCFCFans is a fair cross-section of the mindset of their fans or is that a bit skewed do you think? @AnotherDerbyFan will be able to tell us more- they did though say that Eff the EFL chants have been routine since the first charges.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw online- more questions from RamsTrust to the EFL, this time put from supporters to RamsTrust to put to the EFL.

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/ramstrust-efl-questions/

Some cover old ground, some don't have a good grasp of the situation and some- well don't see how the EFL can answer some of them ie that last category fully due to ongoing proceedings/negotiations.

The 4 points one is a good example of the 2nd category. Mel Morris mentioned on Radio Derby that there was an overspend equivalent to 4 points to 2018 IIRC.

That does not account for the figures to 2019 and maybe beyond but definitely to 2019. Hence the proposed 9 with a further 3 suspended and the mandatory business plan as the proposed final overall settlement. It doesn't just stop when you fail- it can get reset in some ways but it doesn't just stop or reset wholly.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Midred said:

Do the EFL have an "imminent decision" tray or is that the one hidden under the "maybe next month pending a decision "

 tray?

It should be this season but could be subject to negotiations. The force majeure appeal vs the - 12 for administration, although separate offences could be a delaying factor.

A nice thought might be that if later in the season Derby are clawing their way to say a couple of points off safety, the EFL then drop the extra 9 on them. Think of it as snakes and ladders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting from Page 37 of this thread onwards- Kieran Maguire himself appears to have popped up to fight his corner a bit.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38482-derby-to-fight-12-point-deduction-according-to-nixon/page/37/#comments

Strangely, I actually find myself agreeing with small bits of a posters take on there- why were the valuations for Hillsborough and Villa Park seemingly waved through much more readily? Unanswered questions about these two IMO...

I actually even agree- albeit for different reasons- that Risdale on any kind of football oversight board is a nonsense, but the clubs did vote for him- for reasons best known to themselves? There was the Leeds fiasco, then he had a chequered history at Barnsley, Cardiff and Plymouth I believe.

CEO of Barnsley, Luton, Millwall- perhaps even ironically these days QPR, Swansea- these are all relatively well run in 2021, why one of them wasn't deemed to be a better choice than Risdale I don't know. Coventy had relatively low losses in 2019/20 but perhaps hefty debts so unsure. Preston are quite well run but Risdale himself has such a bad history.

Anyway I cannot now find the comment I had some sympathy with but it mentioned depreciation of Villa Park and Hillsborough, and the valuations being lower relative to age. I'll continue to look for it later or tomorrow. This isn't to excuse Derby but I have to wonder how they came to the conclusion they did valuation wise with the other 2 large sale prices.

Sheffield Wednesday

Sold for £60m in 2018 or 2019. That is quite a surge from an external valuation using valuation method of Depreciated Replacement Cost of £22.25m in 2014! As an aging ground, it's hard to fathom. If they had an external valuation for the 2018 or 2019 transaction, then maybe but a) Which method was used, and b) There was no report of one in any of the sets of Written reasons for their case and appeal.

I suppose they would point to the annual rent yield of £2.5-3m per year on the transaction but that's the only real saving grace- perhaps it's enough. Depreciated Replacement Cost is considered to be a useful surrogate for buildings that are tricky to value- a unique asset such as a football stadium would be one example of this.

Aston Villa

I have to wonder if the Football League under Parry would have reached the same conclusions as the Premier League ie had Aston Villa stayed down first of all- if we recall, the EFL commissioned valuation of Pride Park used a different method under the EFL's own criteria according to one report- we do not know how the Premier League approached this.

It's more complex than the Sheffield Wednesday one and here is why- or here are some of the reasons why. Unlike Derby and Sheffield Wednesday there were no past revaluations stated, no revaluation reserve etc.

  1. Aston Villa from Spring 2016 to Summer 2018 had 3 different ownership groups- Lerner, Xia and the NSWE lot. To conclude in May 2019 when they got promoted.
  2. In 2014/15, the Stadium was considered to be a Tangible Fixed Asset and had a book value- not a valuation, perhaps a carrying value of X...
  3. ...The Stadium was and I can't remember when exactly, reclassified along with the Hotel and Training Ground into Investment Property...
  4. ...I believe that the total Fair Value of said Investment Property was classed as under £30m...
  5. ...In 2017/18 accounts, so that would arguably be the first under new owners at least in part there seemed to be some kind of reclassification- it was back as Tangible Fixed Assets again!
  6. Sold in 2018/19 for £56.7m but what of that carrying value- ie the Profit on Disposal??
  7. Did the Fair Value in Investment Property terms equate to the Book/Carrying Value in terms of Tangible Fixed Assets?

Well in 2015/16 on relegation, there was a significant Impairment of Tangible Fixed Assets- there were reports that it included Villa Park but perhaps not...that Impairment itself needs looking at IMO, because even if £56.7m was fair, was the carrying value at time of sale correct? As this was what brought about the £36m Profit on Disposal. Would be interesting to know how things play out there if Aston Villa stayed down and the EFL had 2-3 years to look at it properly while still in their jurisdiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been reading some of the Derby v EFL in that thread.

That the burden of proof lies with the club is point one. It is for Derby to prove that the sole cause of administration was Covid 19.

Interested in other people's take on here.

Secondly, Paragraph 69 in the Wigan case suggested that the owner not funding- whether that be due to choice or running out of cash, I seem to recall that it is deemed/considered to be a normal business risk.

Thirdly, there are two examples in the start of the Force Majeure Sporting Sanctions bit. Derby's predicament clearly isn't due to other clubs eg defaulting on fee so Club Income it is.

The line 'During the currency of a binding agreement' has never clearly been explained but I take it to me now contracts falling through eg.

Maybe an owners business falls through and he can no longer fund the club, or maybe a significant sponsor collapses and through no fault of the club they are in administration. Interestingly the example given in the Wigan case was a TV rights deal falling through but given that these are centrally negotiate it lacks in specifics.

The EFL should also strongly stress the wider reputation of the League. If a lot of clubs tumble over into administration then it will be a terrible look at a time of rising taxes given that many will then be offering HMRC a lot less cash than they're likely due!!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other interesting snippets.

1) Such cases are judged on Balance of Probability. Derby need to according to one legal definition I read prove their case by a ratio of 51-49. 50-50 or below and EFL win. That's just a numerical explanation of Balance of Probability.

2) All due diligence to avoid the event? Was this carried out.

3) Derby or any other club doing this will cover all costs. I approve of this because I disapprove of frivolous appeals.

4) Independent firm of accountants produce a report which is of use in the Hearing. The EFL hire/instruct the accounting firm.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

1) Such cases are judged on Balance of Probability. Derby need to according to one legal definition I read prove their case by a ratio of 51-49. 50-50 or below and EFL win. That's just a numerical explanation of Balance of Probability.

Balance of probabilities essentially means that they need to prove that it is 'more likely than not'. It's the easier burden of proof compared to 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Thinking of it as a 50% +1 isn't a bad way to visualise it.

  • 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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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