Derby County

[Hxj]

On a related issue Cardiff really need to get moving with their season.

As regards Derby -

With 17 (gross) points from 15 games that gives them a generous season total with no deduction of 53 points.  That would see them survive in all but one of the last 10 seasons. 

With the 12 point admin deduction a net score of 41 that would see them relegated in 5 of the last seven seasons.

However Cardiff in 21st place are currently on target for 37 points ..... which on current forcasts would mean that Derby will survive on 38 points, a total that would have seen them relegated by at least 2 points in every one of the last 10 seasons.

[REDOXO]

On 31/10/2021 at 15:29, chinapig said:

I'm no lawyer but I have in my time provided analytical services to some senior judges.

Obviously you have to allow a reasonable time for a club to draft it's application for leave but the process is still quicker.

In the case of tribunals for instance the majority of applications are refused as there are no grounds. You have to show that the original decision was wrong in law. It's not enough to just disagree with it.

A similar process could be applied to EFL decisions, though we are talking regulations and rules rather than law of course so it would be lighter touch.

I'll await Tracey Crouch's report before I give the EFL the benefit of my advice.

Exactly as you say. It is depressing that so many appeals are even heard by institutions on the basis we don’t agree with the decision and that most people think that disagreeing is grounds for appeal in of itself. Nevertheless I have seen decisions appealed with out grounds at City Councils and internal and external employment tribunals. 

[REDOXO]

On 29/10/2021 at 04:25, Davefevs said:

How many times do we hear “so and so” is interested, or heading up a consortium and it goes nowhere?  Far too often.  Sometimes I’m sure it’s just to get a peak at the books.

A peak at the books. Has anyone had one of those since 2017? :laugh:!

I do take your point, that an entity that is considered serious in any MnA will assess the financial data provided and reach a decision based upon book value AND strategic value in many cases.

The purchase of Derby County would be considered a strategic in most people’s view as clearly the current suitors in all cases are looking to own a football club in a certain division with a past and not trying to buy just the book value. Derby would not have the ability to be broken down and sold piecemeal unless the club would become defunct which pretty much leaves one reason to own them….Because you want to!

NOW as I have taken a few days off from this god forsaken place (the whole of OTIB not just this thread) what is the summarized state of play @Mr Popodopolous @Hxj Dave Fevs AND anyone else? 
 

oh and @Mr Popodopolousi was banned over there too. 
 

1 Does anyone outside the club including all prospective buyers the EFL HMIR etc know anymore about the real financial situation at the club now and over recent years?

2 Do we know for certain there is an appeal regarding a perceived Force Majeur and that Derby are claiming that Covid is responsible for its fall into administration? And what are their chances (personally I think that’s a Hail Mary unlesS the EFL have something in their rules that states this may be considered a factor) 
 

3 How many prospective purchasers are there?

4 Derby have a suspended points deduction as I understand it plus a further points deduction possible for not providing their accounts to the EFL where does that stand?
 

All answers and other summarized detail would be great as this thread is multi faceted and most will find it difficult to keep what appears to be one of the great fuckfests of football history straight without regular summaries. 
 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2021 by REDOXO

[chinapig]

56 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Exactly as you say. It is depressing that so many appeals are even heard by institutions on the basis we don’t agree with the decision and that most people think that disagreeing is grounds for appeal in of itself. Nevertheless I have seen decisions appealed with out grounds at City Councils and internal and external employment tribunals. 

Yes, sometimes a tribunal will allow an appeal to go ahead on what they regard as natural justice grounds. For example where an individual employee is taking on a multinational company. This amounts to little more than giving them their day in court even if they have little hope of success.

Not something that applies to Derby though, plucky little victims that they are.

[REDOXO]

23 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Yes, sometimes a tribunal will allow an appeal to go ahead on what they regard as natural justice grounds. For example where an individual employee is taking on a multinational company. This amounts to little more than giving them their day in court even if they have little hope of success.

Not something that applies to Derby though, plucky little victims that they are.

I mainly live in the USA, the concept of natural justice is a completely different animal here. As you my know. However what will happen is branches of local, national and corporate government will hear appeals on the basis of someone at a higher level does not ‘like personally’ the earlier decision and not on the fallibility of an earlier ruling but not hear them when the shoe is on the other foot. 
 

The concept of The Supreme Court here gives the Prolls  the idea you can keep appealing decisions because you don’t like the earlier decision all the way up as The SC is rarely seen to say we can’t hear that as the decision was not wrong and their is no new evidence. 
 

However Plucky little Derby bless them could use a couple of those guys at the EFL justifying themselves.

Edited November 2, 2021 by REDOXO

[chinapig]

3 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

I mainly live in the USA, the concept of natural justice is a completely different animal here. As you my know. However what will happen is branches of local, national and corporate government will hear appeals on the basis of someone at a higher level does not ‘like personally’ the earlier decision and not on the fallibility of an earlier ruling but not hear them when the shoe is on the other foot. 
 

The concept of The Supreme Court here gives the Prolls  the idea you can keep appealing decisions because you don’t like the earlier decision all the way up as The SC is rarely seen to say we can’t here that as the decision was not wrong and their is no new evidence. 
 

However Plucky little Derby bless them could use a couple of those guys at the EFL justifying themselves.

Don't get me started on a judicial system where judges are appointed to the Supreme Court on political grounds or I'll go way off topic!

[REDOXO]

1 minute ago, chinapig said:

Don't get me started on a judicial system where judges are appointed to the Supreme Court on political grounds or I'll go way off topic!

We will stop shortly. But oh effing yes. A judge elected on political grounds is in no way ever going to give you skewed decisions! There is a 3/6 majority of Trumpian **** wits in a co equal branch of government. Its just another example of the fallibility of a hacked constitution that politicians judges and the media project infallibility on, on a daily basis.
 

Meanwhile we gonna win today?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Will look at the thread in detail later but you were banned too eh @REDOXO

Ha well at you reached that stage, I was banned before I even joined and @Hxj before even that stage was.

Their take on the section 3 of the Owners and Directors Test would be interesting but wonder if they're even allowed to discuss. Doesn't fit the weird combination of upbeat and victimhood a lot of their fans seem to have, lot of rubbish about an EFL vendetta on varied platforms.

I'll offer relevant snippets of Section 3 as well. Simplified and summarised.

New owner has to submit to:

*EFL being allowed to use Regulation 16.20- that's the budgetary one- where appropriate.

*As well as all other steps that the EFL see fit.

This is in order to allow the EFL to ensure compliance and not only ensure but monitor it too, with Regulations 16-19, think it mentioned varied others too but they have significant power over a new owner if required. Carte blanche for the EFL in some ways.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

1 Does anyone outside the club including all prospective buyers the EFL HMIR etc know anymore about the real financial situation at the club now and over recent years?

The Administrators will have a good handle on the numbers by now.  They need to be published shortly at which point everyone will know what the balance sheet will look lke.

 

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

2 Do we know for certain there is an appeal regarding a perceived Force Majeur and that Derby are claiming that Covid is responsible for its fall into administration? And what are their chances (personally I think that’s a Hail Mary unlesS the EFL have something in their rules that states this may be considered a factor) 

Yes the appeal is due to be heard next week.  The issue I think is not on whether 'Covid' qualifies, but more was it the sole reason for the Administration.  Given the pre-existing HMRC debt, there was a winding up order in January 2020, and the restarting of winding up orders by HMRC in October 2021, plus the apparent lack of funding from Morris in the intervening period, I have serious doubts that any appeal will succeed.

 

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

3 How many prospective purchasers are there?

Allegedly two or three.  I have my doubts about Chris Krichner, something doesn't feel right about his public wealth and the difference with the suggested wealth available.

 

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

4 Derby have a suspended points deduction as I understand it plus a further points deduction possible for not providing their accounts to the EFL where does that stand?

Derby have the following:

An actual 12 points penalty for Administration - under appeal

An agreed 3 points penalty for failure to pay football wages - suspended until 30 June 2022 - activated if there is another non-payment.

A points penalty for EFL FFP failings, Morris says 4 points - I suspect significantly higher.  Currently under negotiation as to whether or not an agreed sanction can be reached.

 

[REDOXO]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Will look at the thread in detail later but you were banned too eh @REDOXO

Ha well at you reached that stage, I was banned before I even joined and @Hxj before even that stage was.

Their take on the section 3 of the Owners and Directors Test would be interesting but wonder if they're even allowed to discuss. Doesn't fit the weird combination of upbeat and victimhood a lot of their fans seem to have, lot of rubbish about an EFL vendetta on varied platforms.

 

4 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The Administrators will have a good handle on the numbers by now.  They need to be published shortly at which point everyone will know what the balance sheet will look lke.

 

Yes the appeal is due to be heard next week.  The issue I think is not on whether 'Covid' qualifies, but more was it the sole reason for the Administration.  Given the pre-existing HMRC debt, there was a winding up order in January 2020, and the restarting of winding up orders by HMRC in October 2021, plus the apparent lack of funding from Morris in the intervening period, I have serious doubts that any appeal will succeed.

 

Allegedly two or three.  I have my doubts about Chris Krichner, something doesn't feel right about his public wealth and the difference with the suggested wealth available.

 

Derby have the following:

An actual 12 points penalty for Administration - under appeal

An agreed 3 points penalty for failure to pay football wages - suspended until 30 June 2022 - activated if there is another non-payment.

A points penalty for EFL FFP failings, Morris says 4 points - I suspect significantly higher.  Currently under negotiation as to whether or not an agreed sanction can be reached.

 

Thanks Lads. Yep I was a member of their board for three years (well before this hit the fan) for a number of reasons, but got kicked off! 

ok here we go!

Ok so the administrator will be publishing figures and unless there is something strange going on they must be what is being handed to the interested party’s. Who obviously will be doing their due diligence internally prior to a Letter of Intent. Do we know if they have received a LoI?

Yes the appeal always looked a Hail Mary to add some value, however it was sliced. 
 

Yes interested party’s is a very loose term. I’m interested in lots of things! I suppose it goes back to my previous comment about an LoI. Also what is in the minds of the purchaser. Some might like to rebuild a club and not bother with all of the current charade with appeals or over paid players and huge debt to HM GOVT. The idea of appeals could be completely flawed, but the administrator gets paid either way. 
 

Ok so if I’m understanding correctly Derby start next season minus three if wages are not paid to players. I guess the income taxes are a part of that, so we can all assume HM REVENUE are getting paid players taxes and NI contributions. 
 

we are unclear as to FFP Penalty up to this point as it’s only Morris that has mentioned the number. The EFL are negotiating further with administrators, however there is nothing more sophisticated than leverage, so I would suggest the EFL could end them at any time and are only in them to try and give the administrators a fighting chance of them selling the club (Derby fans take note) 

So to be clear @Hxjthe missing three years accounts to the EFL is this another points deduction issue, or does this form part of the administrators negotiations?

 

Thanks all this helps and anyone can pop in to this thread and know where we are at from here. 

[chinapig]

2 hours ago, REDOXO said:

We will stop shortly. But oh effing yes. A judge elected on political grounds is in no way ever going to give you skewed decisions! There is a 3/6 majority of Trumpian **** wits in a co equal branch of government. Its just another example of the fallibility of a hacked constitution that politicians judges and the media project infallibility on, on a daily basis.
 

Meanwhile we gonna win today?

Let's just say the Constitution and Bill of Rights may be a tad overrated.

And if we lose tonight I intend to appeal.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

Ok so if I’m understanding correctly Derby start next season minus three if wages are not paid to players. I guess the income taxes are a part of that, so we can all assume HM REVENUE are getting paid players taxes and NI contributions. 

Are you sure the taxes have been paid?  Not sure how they’ve racked up such an HMRC debt otherwise?  Or are you saying not paying HMRC should trigger minus three points?  If so, surely they’ve failed that already.  I guess there’s a subtle different between paying a players wages and paying the players taxes?

[Hxj]

58 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Ok so the administrator will be publishing figures and unless there is something strange going on they must be what is being handed to the interested party’s.

The published figures will be a summary.  Full details will be provided if you can meet the Administrators' demands.

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

Derby start next season minus three if wages are not paid to players.

Nope - the penalty will be applied at the date of default - then it is potentially suject to deferral to next season if Derby are relegated without the deduction.

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

I guess the income taxes are a part of that, so we can all assume HM REVENUE are getting paid players taxes and NI contributions. 

Nope - paying the amounts due to HMRC is not part of paying your football wages.  However having overdue HMRC PAYE/NIC debts puts you into an embargo.

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

The EFL are negotiating further with administrators, however there is nothing more sophisticated than leverage

There is also the Business Plan which will need to be agreed or imposed on the exit from Administration.

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

So to be clear @Hxjthe missing three years accounts to the EFL is this another points deduction issue, or does this form part of the administrators negotiations?

A points penalty can be imposed for any breach of the Regulations.  I suspect that everything will be wrapped up in one large agreed decison.

 

The other issue which needs to be endlessly repeated to hope it gets picked up elsewhere is HMRC's published policy on voting against CVAs, where there is an arrangement where some parties are treated preferentially as Football Creditors are.  Whilst a CVA and an Administration are different they have the same net outcome.  If HMRC vote against the Administrators' proposals and those proposals are lost then DCFC is likely to go into Liquidatin unless all creditors are paid in full.

[Mr Popodopolous]

That's a great summary @Hxj

I would say that if 9 + a further 3 suspended is to cover everything then that's pretty generous of the EFL IMO. Obviously there's the 12 points that they are appealing and Derby fans seem increasingly bullish about this albeit could be small numbers still. Albeit on the HMRC bit I did read one site that said that they would be open to accepting but it depends on varied factors. The last paragraph does not sound fantastic. Can only assume the HMRC amount is at least in part linked to tax arrears.

Quote

No it is not true. Having been involved in company voluntary arrangements and advising directors on their options since 1996 we can safely say that HMRC will take each case on its merits.  

• Is a CVA the best option for creditors? 
• Or is administration or liquation the best outcome? 

It is for the insolvency practitioner and the directors to work that out together.

HMRC will approve company voluntary arrangement proposals if they are properly structured, well thought through, supported by a detailed financial forecast and a statement of affairs and comparisons of outcome to show the difference between liquidation or a CVA. But one of the key tests is this:  IS THE BUSINESS VIABLE?

Additionally, HMRC will not support CVAs when there has been poor management, lack of financial information, regular late filing of tax returns or annual accounts and lots of tax arrears going back for a long time. We call this the compliance test.

https://www.companyrescue.co.uk/guides-knowledge/guides/hmrc-and-the-cva-process-3834/

Interesting post from Ghost of Clough on the FFP/P&S issue.

Quote

4 points for overspending in the 3 years to 2018 based on a standard amortisation policy.

EFL claim is for an additional 8 points for failing other years, minus 3 for accepting the deal on the table.

DCFC (or Mel) claim is that we shouldn't be punished for further periods due to the circumstances (ordinarily we'd have been punished for 2018 and then have time to address things for the 2019 period and beyond).

In this argument, Derby perhaps claiming that any punishment beyond 2018 wouldn't be fair as they had no chance to rectify it at the time so perhaps they are proposing it should be 4 pts to 2018 and then nothing thereafter, save for monitoring the present period and requirements.

If Derby want to play that game, perhaps the EFL should look at charges of misconduct for every single offence and push for a points penalty with each...a lot of their actions might qualify.

1. No Accounts to EFL- misconduct?
2. No Accounts to CH- misconduct?
3. No P&S calculations- misconduct?
4. HMRC issue- misconduct?

Would any/all qualify?

Would also ask you, what kind of business plan should the EFL impose on the new owner- indeed what would you impose if you were the EFL @Hxj ? I would certainly make it that for this season at least, if at all possible, every inbound transfer has to be run by them and only approved if it fits the correct criteria. Certainly would be easier if they haven't submitted to CH- professional standing rule could that remain in play while that is ongoing. Do you think the accounts failings could also qualify for professional standing as well as HMRC or would they be the more lenient part of the embargo rules?

Edited November 2, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

On the general note of it all, these rules.

I did read on the Derby forum that Mel Morris goaded the EFL on Talksport or similar to some extent in an interview. I vaguely remember it, I listen to Talksport periodically and he basically said about the ground saga in the early days "I'd rather take on the EFL than HMRC" or words to that effect.

While HMRC can liquidate companies in a sense so yeah get it, he was not thinking- I wonder why he did not ponder a) The professional standing rule b) The 16.20 whereby the EFL can compel clubs to work to a budget c) The ability seemingly to withdraw approval for the Marriott renewal and so on. He really did not choose his words carefully.

Taking on the EFL persistently has landed Derby at best for now, with a £4.5k per week wage cap for 6 free transfers, or loans for 6 months- no loan fees, no transfer fees, unable to pay higher than the wage of the loan player at the parent club ie unable to top their wage up and seemingly if necessary the ability to withdraw approval for a contract renewal if it doesn't fit the terms. Oh and the professional standing rule- falls to 16 between windows and 23 during the window...think they already have over 23 and Jagielka and Baldock expire in January sometime...Unsure how signing on fees are accounted for under those regulations.

Granted it's all within the regulations but I doubt his actions and words helped. It's largely down to him and the club that Derby are in this position. Plus his mate Stephen Pearce too probably- he after all at that time was the qualified accountant in the room?

Interested in your take on this too @AnotherDerbyFan seems to me that he had been playing with fire somewhat. Playing a bit of a dangerous game.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Derby perhaps claiming that any punishment beyond 2018 wouldn't be fair as they had no chance to rectify it at the time so perhaps they are proposing it should be 4 pts to 2018 and then nothing thereafter, save for monitoring the present period and requirements.

This would be a weak argument imo even if the cause was a slip of the pen but even more so since it was an egregious attempt to cheat the system. Case dismissed!

[REDOXO]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Are you sure the taxes have been paid?  Not sure how they’ve racked up such an HMRC debt otherwise?  Or are you saying not paying HMRC should trigger minus three points?  If so, surely they’ve failed that already.  I guess there’s a subtle different between paying a players wages and paying the players taxes?

Exactly, with your last sentence.... I'm just saying that right now the players have to be paid. Paying the players income tax must be part of the players wages, as such HMRC must be currently being paid on current wages. The 25m is for previously unpaid... 

HOWEVER if HMRC is not being paid currently then yes that should trigger the deduction as its the players taxes as such their money........Nevertheless, @Hxjwho has infinitely more knowledge says that it does not mean that and the Inland Revenue may not be being paid....WOW. What a mess....  

Edited November 2, 2021 by REDOXO

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Exactly, with your last sentence.... I'm just saying that right now the players have to be paid. Paying the players income tax must be part of the players wages, as such HMRC must be currently being paid on current wages. The 25m is for previously unpaid... 

HOWEVER if HMRC is not being paid currently then yes that should trigger the deduction as its the players taxes as such their money.

Got you….hence probably why Mel didn’t want to start / carry on paying wages AND now Tax too.  If so, what a complete anchor with a capital W.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Davefevs

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

This would be a weak argument imo even if the cause was a slip of the pen but even more so since it was an egregious attempt to cheat the system. Case dismissed!

I'm inclined to agree with this- however you can never tell with Independent Panels, the Sheffield Wednesday deduction being halved is/was a shocker.

Suffice to say that view is gaining traction on DCFCFans, the one I posted. They still think they are victims IMO, it's beyond loyalty and denial, the RamsTrust q's and observations to the EFL are a perfect example but the mindset it is hard to fathom.

Just read these and make your own minds up!

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/ramstrust-meeting-with-the-efl/

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/efl-response-to-ramstrust/

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

@Hxj @Davefevs @REDOXO

Still can't fathom some of them and their narratives- especially from a group who called for enhanced regulations in 2011/2012 time.

Well that is strange, cannot find the stuff from the past now...

Edited November 2, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[REDOXO]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Got you….hence probably why Mel didn’t want to start / carry on paying wages AND now Tax too.  If so, what a complete anchor with a capital W.

I added to the previous post as Hxj's view is different and he knows loads more than me.

[REDOXO]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm inclined to agree with this- however you can never tell with Independent Panels, the Sheffield Wednesday deduction being halved is/was a shocker.

Suffice to say that view is gaining traction on DCFCFans, the one I posted. They still think they are victims IMO, it's beyond loyalty and denial, the RamsTrust q's and observations to the EFL are a perfect example but the mindset it is hard to fathom.

Just read these and make your own minds up!

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/ramstrust-meeting-with-the-efl/

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/efl-response-to-ramstrust/

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

@Hxj @Davefevs @REDOXO

Still can't fathom some of them and the seeming blaming EFL narrative- especially from a group who called for enhanced regulations in 2011/2012 time.

Well that is strange, cannot find the stuff from the past now...

Yes I nipped out to The Rams Trust site....Nearly all of the questions come at it like they are in some kind of battle with an idiot organization that hates them for no apparent reason....Brushing over millions of unpaid taxes, failure to submit accounts with multiple rule breaches a ground that doesn't belong to the club anymore and being in administration....WOW! Donald Trump should run for MP for Derbyshire with that level of Cognitive Dissonance.  

[Hxj]

Albeit on the HMRC bit I did read one site that said that they would be open to accepting but it depends on varied factors. @Mr Popodopolous

I completely agree with your quote, but would respectfully point out to m'lud that it doesn't take into account HMRC's published position where preference is given to one group of non-preferential creditors over another.  Precisely what Football Creditors are.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

Yes I nipped out to The Rams Trust site....Nearly all of the questions come at it like they are in some kind of battle with an idiot organization that hates them for no apparent reason....Brushing over millions of unpaid taxes, failure to submit accounts with multiple rule breaches a ground that doesn't belong to the club anymore and being in administration....WOW! Donald Trump should run for MP for Derbyshire with that level of Cognitive Dissonance.  

Always thought in a lighthearted way, that Mel was Derbyshire's answer to the Donald tbh! You see shades of it given he said he was in the 2020 hearing "An enemy of the EFL state" the most memorable, also that the EFL especially Shaun Harvey had an axe to grind with him and Derby personally...an agenda that kinda thing. Couple of those bolded bits, could they be actionable? Who knows but life is too short. Found his claims in the EFL hearing etc. Edit- just googled, absolute privilege so that'd be a no.

Quote

20) We heard factual evidence on behalf of the Club by:
a) Mel Morris. Mr Morris has throughout the relevant period been the owner and Chairman of the Club. He gave evidence about his purchase of Pride Park from the Club and the background to that sale. His witness statement also contained a considerable amount of evidence about the Club’s wider relationship with the EFL – a relationship which he characterises as i) Involving ‘dislike’ of him and the Club by the EFL ii) Him being an ‘enemy of the EFL state’, and iii) The EFL having an ‘axe to grind against [him] personally

Paragraphs 21 and 22 also seem to build on it a bit further, his claims/perceptions.

Quote

21) Given

a) The numerous suggestions made in Mr Morris’ witness statements about the EFL (and in particular Mr Harvey and Mr Craig) having some sort of ‘agenda’ against the Club and/or him,

b) The manner in which certain witnesses were cross-examined, and

c) The suggestions made in the Club’s closing submission about aspects of the FA’s factual evidence

we make it clear at the outset that we considered that each of the factual witnesses called by the EFL from whom we heard gave their evidence honestly and were doing their best to help us on the relevant issues. Regardless of how Mr Morris might perceive the way that he and the Club are viewed by the EFL, we reject any suggestion that the EFL’s factual evidence was in any way tainted by animosity or dislike (and, for the avoidance of doubt, reject any suggestion that such animosity or dislike was established on the evidence before us), or that the EFL’s factual evidence was in any way unreliable as a result.

22) Although we return below to address the Club’s suggestion that the EFL has been motivated to bring these Charges against the Club by some improper stimulus, we also make it clear at the outset that we reject that suggestion. The evidence that we heard and the documentary evidence before us simply did not bear out such an assertion.

Found the stuff from them in the past as well, even features some of the same individuals.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmcumeds/509/509vw10.htm

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmcumeds/writev/792/fg15.htm

Edited November 2, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

Albeit on the HMRC bit I did read one site that said that they would be open to accepting but it depends on varied factors. @Mr Popodopolous

I completely agree with your quote, but would respectfully point out to m'lud that it doesn't take into account HMRC's published position where preference is given to one group of non-preferential creditors over another.  Precisely what Football Creditors are.

Yeah I'll go with that! I did read it but you seem to know a lot about it...more than me! More nuanced than a piece online I guess and this will be a very interesting test case- sure there will have been companies and sole traders, individuals but none with a public profile such as Derby.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Saw this on DCFCFans.

Will just pull this snippet of the quote out and come back to it tomorrow, and leave Derby for tonight.

Quote

I know this is boring but I've been pulled in to reading otib and their discussion on us. 

I don't really understand their obsession with us not filing accounts with CH like it's a crime against humanity. I thought it was known that the reason why we've not filed accounts was due to the fact that a fundamental feature of our accounting process has been under scrutiny for so long (years and years) by the efl. Hence why they've not been filed. I also don't quite understand why this in itself has given us (or not) a sporting advantage. Is not filing accounts with CH an offence in itself with proscribed penalty? Surely it is dependent on the outcome of discussions with the efl about the acceptability of amortisation techniques which has been ongoing for literally 2+years?

Yes- addition to the Embargo Reporting Service until such time as it is rectified. See below...

Quote

Championship

Derby County

Regulation 16.2 - Failure to provide audited annual accounts

Regulation 16.3 - Annual Accounts not filed with Companies House

Regulation 17 - Default in payments to HMRC

Profit and Sustainability Rules - non-submission of audited accounts

Club in administration

16.3. Just one of many bits that will need sorting one way or another, as part of a final settlement.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10162069/Derby-County-learn-week-appeal-against-12-point-deduction-successful.html

Timing wise it totally makes sense given that it would have been 4 weeks or so since news of the appeal came to light.

Where I have to question is if there has been any leeway whatsoever regarding the timing. If any little document or bit of evidence that was required within 7 days of the notice- the notice perhaps was 22nd September 2021- came in on Day 8, then that surely would be grounds to challenge the legitimacy never mind the overall case.

They have a real cheek appealing tbh, but what would be hilarious so surely too much to ask is if Derby had made some kinda procedural error or failing in their appeal, and the case failed on a technicality- if Carlsberg did EFL appeals...

I know Wigan appealed but Wigan were not guilty/accused of everything else. Hell were they even straight with the EFL on medical records? Kazim-Richards was due to be out for many months, Jagielka but especially Baldock were permitted to sign to January as part of that- especially Baldock.

Tonight, Baldock and Kazim-Richards both start...first thing EFL need to do is refuse them if professional standing accurate to renew those 2 in January.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Would there be any scope I wonder for the EFL to permit additions such as these only on month by month contracts, so that if they return significantly sooner than anticipated the emergency signing player leaves at the end of the relevant month, bye bye.

[Hxj]

Both Cardiff and Derby lost today,

Cardiff really need to get moving with their season.

As regards Derby -

With 17 (gross) points from 16 games that gives them a generous season total with no deduction of 49 points.  That would see them survive in all but two of the last 10 seasons. 

With the 12 point admin deduction a net score of 37 that would see them relegated in all of the last 10 seasons.

However Cardiff in 21st place are currently on target for an ungenerous 34 points ..... which on current forcasts would mean that Derby will survive on 35 points, a total that would have seen them relegated by at least 4 points in every one of the last 10 seasons.

I've ignored Reading for now as there is no official announcement and there are reports of a 12 points deduction of which 3 are suspended and a 9 points deduction of which 3 are suspended.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

Wouldn't Derby be due the 2nd deduction too this season?

If this one upheld, that one implemented then - 21 surely would see them drop.

Worth a read of the comments underneath the article too, no sympathy for Derby. Albeit just 10-15 comments but I think there is precious little sympathy among Championship fans or clubs/club hierarchy.

[Mr Popodopolous]

May as well add a little.

Took a quick read of their forum this morning...some are saying but by no means a majority that they would rather get all the points hit in one go this season. Something makes me think that the 9 points with a further 3 suspended should be applicable at time it has the most effect but it's a view I understand and a bit of a change of tune...too convenient and neat in some ways.

However some are optimistic indeed...a couple of posters suggested the -12 gets overturned, a new owner comes in pays debts and embargo lifted to sign in January with no sign of the -9 this season.

Few issues with that...

1. New owner has to agree- or have imposed on them- a business plan of some kind. Linked to the exit from administration?
2. This is perhaps separate to the one based on any FFP settlement- this would require a 2 year or 1 year business plan plus it would cover the remainder of this season.
3. Why would the EFL let them strengthen in January with FFP issues outstanding, contested or unresolved as they might well be by then? That really would be cake and eat it territory! They've been allowed their signings.
4. Said it before but Regulation 16.20, combined with Section 3 of Owners and Directors Test...this could enable the EFL to keep the club in stasis irrespective of ownership until all matters resolved to their satisfaction.
5. Paying off debts is one thing, but also the regulations about accounts and FFP submissions- again why should the EFL ease matters notably if any of these remain outstanding come January?

The EFL have various tools with which to exert leverage- I hope they utilise them to the full.

As for the controversial issue of Force Majeure and administration -12...I hope a successful appeal, possibly the fact they made an appeal at all, makes the EFL continue to go in hard on other matters but that's beside the point for a minute.

Again, solely? Dunno- the EFL's period for Covid losses to be exempted was only the last 2 seasons, although that's a P&S issue. This season would be considered normal service resuming again hence why Reading may well face a deduction.

From the Wigan appeal- includes the odd paragraph plus the relevant Regs...

"solely". Any other factors involved and it surely has to fail?

"All due diligence"- that's quite a broad term although legally more common seems to be "all reasonable endeavours". That's slightly odd wording for regulations of this kind. In fact the EFL's wording throughout the piece for their Force Majeure Regs is slightly odd. Due diligence is more about takeovers, mergers and acquisitions etc surely. Could they have not signed players, sold a player more or 2? Possibly. There is a piece albeit under NZ law that suggests that all due diligence is basically akin to best endeavours- could under English law, all due diligence be considered equivalent to all reasonable endeavours?

I still think that external funding collapsing would be a reasonable argument- the owner who isn't bankrupt not continuing, not so much. If it's the same panel, I don't see how they can come to a different interpretation.

Paragraphs 65-69.

"Truly external to the club"- despite claims of sustainability, had they been actually sustainable then they wouldn't have had to go into administration when Mel Morris pulled the plug would they.

74-79 also build on this and as I've said before, owner funding running out or stopping is considered a normal business risk in this context.

Not sure about the EFL's definition once again though- as I've said before a major sponsor collapsing as a result of Covid maybe a better bet. Something unique to the club maybe?

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/1920-judgements/wigan-athletic-v-efl.pdf

I don't believe Mel Morris literally was unable to fund Derby to the end of this season, financially speaking. Therefore it feels like they are trying it on somewhat! Even then, the Panel suggested an owners fortune collapsing again a normal business risk.

The owner putting £X in is funding not income, or was the case for Wigan so should be for Derby.

A major sponsor collapsing is a collapse in income, the owner ceasing or running out of giving cash to the club, is a collapse in funding.

What's your take @Hxj on the 'optimistic' scenario that:

• -12 overturned
• New owner in and allowed to strengthen in Jan...
• ...Even allowed to do so with no resolution of the P&S issue and the outstanding embargo reasons not yet resolved?
• Also seen suggested that -4 max and then allowed to strengthen- small matter of multiple outstanding seasons and a business plan to be agreed?

Surely the EFL wouldn't allow this- wouldn't allow one without the other. They had their additions within parameters in the summer, surely no more until P&S sanctions finalised. Tad 'optimistic' no!

Edited November 4, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous