Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County


havanatopia

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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?

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.

All we can do is sit and wait and see what happens.

However I only assume that the EFL will follow their rules and that until paperwork is submitted and a full and final settlement is reached with Derby (including a comprehensive business plan) they will be bound by the current soft and hard embargos.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

All we can do is sit and wait and see what happens.

However I only assume that the EFL will follow their rules and that until paperwork is submitted and a full and final settlement is reached with Derby (including a comprehensive business plan) they will be bound by the current soft and hard embargos.

 

Thanks, that makes sense.

Yeah all things being equal, the EFL should quite simply be upholding their regulations. They have been and should continue to do so.

Doesn't stop some Derby fans whinging about how disgraceful the EFL are though, bless! :)

Wonder what their proposed solution is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing too.

Going into administration is not supposed to be done lightly.

In addition to the - 12, the Business Plan is supposed IMO to provide a level of deterrence. An element of moral hazard.

People who can ill afford it will get, have been screwed over in the process.

Therefore I find some of their fans takes to be unusual. It's not supposed to be easy, a relatively swift return to something approaching business as usual.

You wipe a hefty chunk of unsecured debt but it comes with a hefty price tag.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A read of the most recent page is quite interesting and at times amusing.

Most who complain about the EFL neglect to mention the democratic nature of it. One sort of goes that way but then makes references in so doing to 'The Gibson faction'. Another seemed to think they should be put in charge of Uganda or similar!?

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38482-derby-to-fight-12-point-deduction-according-to-nixon/page/72/#comments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Morris was trying to bypass FFP , risked all to get to the Prem , then tried to sell and minimise his liabilities. No one came forward as no one wanted to pay him back his loans. So instead he stops funding to minimise his losses. That is how I see it. Derby fans have only him to blame not the EFL. How much did the Bolton ex owner (no longer alive) write off in loans to the club to help it survive ? Morris will have to do the same. But he did create that debt and was knowingly doing everything to bypass regulations . 

Hey this could easily happen to us and many other clubs if the owner pulls the plug. 

Makes the Swindon relegation seem incredible in the context of what we see here , and the huge Derby  HMRC debts . 

Eddie Davis - £170m I think.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A read of the most recent page is quite interesting and at times amusing.

Most who complain about the EFL neglect to mention the democratic nature of it. One sort of goes that way but then makes references in so doing to 'The Gibson faction'. Another seemed to think they should be put in charge of Uganda or similar!?

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38482-derby-to-fight-12-point-deduction-according-to-nixon/page/72/#comments

A few speaking sense on there though. Rightly saying that Covid was merely a contributing factor to the Admin, and far from the sole cause.

Although the one lad trying to compare them to Wigan seems a little confused.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you mentioned the HMRC debt @billywedlock

£20-28m are estimates based on media reports yet it has slipped off the radar somewhat. Seen it stated in the past that it is a record HMRC debt for football clubs who have gone into admimistration.

I expect that HMRC will take a big haircut. Seen a few on their forum in recent times saying they would rather it went to the club, ie the club are more important than HMRC etc.

Of late, they have speculated more about whether they can sign players/strengthen in January than about HMRC.

Truly they as a club and fanbase deserve a fairly hard landing.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

I would hope the HMRC debt is included in liabilities to settle before the club goes anywhere near signing players again. How HMRC allowed it to get that bad is hard to work out. They don't normally mess about. Probably a mix of VAT and employment costs. After the Rangers situation, HMRC will not be an easy roll over

HMRC made clear on 12 June that it would vote against a proposed Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).[56] Their formal rejection of the proposed CVA on 14 June meant that Rangers would be liquidated,[57] while the club would have to be reformed within a new company structure.[58] The business and assets of Rangers were sold to Sevco Scotland Ltd, with the accountancy firm BDO due to be appointed as liquidator.[59] Duff & Phelps announced in October 2012 that creditors had approved an end to their administration and that they had applied to the Court of Session for BDO to be appointed as liquidator.[60] This appointment was legally approved on 31 October.

This will be a really interesting case, I agree in principle with you btw. A strict embargo seems only fair in these circs.

This is perhaps the highest profile case of its kind post the restoration of Crown Preference. HMRC also need all the tax they can get post Covid.

However on the other hand, does Derbyshire not fall within the Red Wall geographically? Not hard to envisage a lot of MPs in that county grumbling, raising questions. Asking how Derby County going to the wall fits with 'levelling up'.

Time to pay? Another possibility.

One bit that's a bit random and that has gone under the radar a tad. Mel Morris donated to the Tories in 2017. Just once as far as I can see- think that the MP in q was Patrick McLoughlin, never seen it reported anywhere however.

I say MP, he's now in the House of Lords.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

I'm not sure HMRC can treat a football club different to any business in administration. So I assume the HMRC liabilities will have to be paid if the company is to continue as the an existing entity. Hence Rangers, and HMRC forced them into insolvency and they had to reapply to the league to come back as a New Co. HMRC cannot be seen to be funding Mel Morris and his deception . I would have to believe any incoming money will have to clear that debt. The precedence would be fateful if not. 

Once again, I agree with the bulk of your post. Would set a terrible precedent as you say. Although Rangers still got off lightly in some ways but there was a report in October, that said Derby's administrators were looking to negotiate the HMRC debt down by millions.

MPs would certainly lobby or complain I'm sure. One has already been moaning a bit about the EFL.

One example to consider was Portsmouth in 2010. I don't know how the Insolvency works exactly now but then it was the case that if HMRC's debt made up 25% of the total debt then their vote could block a CVA. Possible insolvency as you say.

However, worth noting that the administrators reclassified a chunk of that HMRC debt. Something about disputed amounts, image rights and about £13m was lopped off the HMRC pile, their share was now under 25%.

Court ruled in Portsmouth's favour, HMRC no longer could block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Optimism is growing among Derby fans about their force majeure appeal however.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38482-derby-to-fight-12-point-deduction-according-to-nixon/?do=findComment&comment=2227552

The reasonable steps argument gets an airing. Because to sign Marshall, Byrne and Jozwiak- the latter was £4m, in the summer of 2020 was okay in the circs as there were no reasonable expectations that Covid would lock fans out all season.

Also to sell Buchanan and Lawrence in summer 2021 wouldn't have stopped administration so...

I don't know they're so slimy aren't they. Fans, club, hierarchy past and present. The lot really.

That said, I rate that poster. Although I do believe that they said sometime early in the summer that Derby wouldn't be under an Embargo even.

Professional standing, did they mention that in their predictions?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Optimism is growing among Derby fans

mmmm - I would have more confidence in their arguments if:

1.  They discussed 'solely';

2.  They discussed the HMRC winding up petition in January 2020 and the proximity of the Administration to HMRC recommencing winding up petitions on 1 October 2021.

3.  They could also tell me what happened to the £75 million odd owed to the football club for the ground.

As seen in the Rangers and Portsmouth court cases HMRC do fight their corner consistently in respect of voting against cases where 'special rules' like the Football Creditors rule applies.

Therefore there is every chance that HMRC will vote in the same way again, which could mean that The Derby County Football Club Limited may not be able to leave Administration and would therefore enter Liquidation.

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

On related issues the Rams Investment Limited/Gabay Charge against the Stadium Group has been repaid in full.

A new charge against the Stadium Group has been put in place from MSD.  Two possibilities, more funds have been borrowed from MSD solely secured against the Stadium Group, alternatively it is part of a clean up for disposal as the previous charge against the Stadium Group and Football Group has been called in.  Personally I suspect the latter.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the summary. Find particularly interesting the relative lack of analysis over there of the sole cause etc bit.

Seen some slightly confusing takes which were along the lines of "if not for Covid we wouldn't be in administration but too complex to put it down to one cause".

HMRC bit is a proper interesting test case. Wonder how it is comprised, the HMRC debt. Certain aspects are now preferential after all.

I saw  that too the MSD bit. Didn't get round to posting.

The explanations I've seen from the Derby end are:

1) A further loan taken out to fund the club perhaps until January. By Mel to the club. Twitter IIRC.

2) A tidying up exercise in order to take the Derby group companies off the hook for it, ie the 6 in administration.

Very nice of MSD and Mel!

PistoldPete on dcfcfans.uk seems to be the source of the latter.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.

Seems to be Mel taking the risk but the club getting the cash?

Implications on reopening of past FFP cases? EFL surely should he aware of this.

Forgot to say too, looks like there won't be a Creditors meeting, certainly not at this stage. Mentions something about 'deemed consent'.

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/ramstrust-meeting-with-administrators-03-11-2021/

Any ideas? Seems to me on very quick first glance that if creditors don't formally object by a deadline, it goes through automatically.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

if creditors don't formally object by a deadline, it goes through automatically.

Yep - in most insolvencies deemed consent is used to simplify matters and reduce the paperwork.

Currently I can only see HMRC objecting to the proposals if any creditor does not get paid in full.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derby really need to get moving with their season.

Cardiff won and Peterborough lost, both have 15 points from 17 games.

As regards Derby -

With 18 (gross) points from 17 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 total of 37 that would see them relegated in all of the last 10 seasons.

Cardiff/Peterborough in 21st place are currently on target for an ungenerous 40 points ..... which on current forcasts would mean that Derby will survive on 41 points, a total that would have seen them relegated in 5 of the last 10 seasons.  However with their estimated net total is no longer sufficient to predict any chance of survival.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screenshot_20211107-160925_Twitter.thumb

Derby update, via the Athletic taken from DCFCFans.

Seems that there is a belief that the FFP/P&S deduction only 3 points??

If that is the case then the EFL have crumbled horribly. Granted the 3 years to 2018 might be a 3 point job but the whole period/final settlement being 3 points would be an absurdity. EFL need to keep a hardline approach for the foreseeable IMO. Derby are certainly less important than the EFL.

The 'belief' bit I assume would be from within the club, or the administrators or a prospective new owner.

What about the 2019 accounts, the period to 2020 and 2021 combined and the business plan that an EFL FFP breach has attached?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You seem to know some stuff about this @Hxj

Surely that 3 point deduction wouldn't form a final settlement? That would on the face of it be an absurd climbdown and would also weaken their hand in the ongoing case/discussions vs Reading?

Would be very odd, especially as it sounds like Reading have already “agreed” to a nine point deduction.

3 points is hardly much of a deterrent for future examples either

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Surely that 3 point deduction

Which three point deduction? The one detailed in an 'Agreed Sanction' or detailed in a 'DC decision' or mentioned in a 'tweet'?

Not sure the general public have seen the revised accounts for 2016, 2017 and 2018, let alone any accounts for 2019, 2020 and 2021, so not sure why there is anything other than that pregnant pause ...

Plus I still expect HMRC to vote against any 'exit from Administration' and force The Derby County Football Club Limited into liquidation, at which point any points deduction is irelevant.

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

42 minutes ago, Loosey Boy said:

Would be very odd, especially as it sounds like Reading have already “agreed” to a nine point deduction.

3 points is hardly much of a deterrent for future examples either

Maybe Reading would push back or insist on the chance to fight their corner at a Disciplinary Commission if Derby's case resulted in a 3 point deduction only.

Unless it's 3 points for the seasons made up to 2018 with an IDC to determine the period to 2019 and perhaps beyond. 

That scenario aside, yes would set a terrible precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Which three point deduction? The one detailed in an 'Agreed Sanction' or detailed in a 'DC decision' or mentioned in a 'tweet'?

Not sure the general public have seen the revised accounts for 2016, 2017 and 2018, let alone any accounts for 2019, 2020 and 2021, so not sure why there is anything other than that pregnant pause ...

Plus I still expect HMRC to vote against any 'exit from Administration' and force The Derby County Football Club Limited into liquidation, at which point any points deduction is irelevant.

The Athletic. I assume wages are still being paid correctly or that one should be activated too.

Should add that I believe it is from the Derby end that the confidence seems to be, about the 3 pts for P&S.

Now the HMRC bit is interesting. Can HMRC do this if the administrators use deemed consent as opposed to a Creditors meeting?

Deemed consent seems like a way to bypass and reduce scrutiny etc.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The Athletic.

A well known regulatory body or a bit of journalistic flyer?

10 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Can HMRC do this if the administrators use deemed consent as opposed to a Creditors meeting?

Not sure that the Administrators can actually call a Creditors' meeting.  They send the proposals to exit Administration to the Creditors and they either vote yes or no.  'Deemed Consent' simply means if you do not vote in time you will be deemed to vote in favour.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found this when looking for stuff about a CVA on Dcfcfans.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/8613-nigel-saying-10-point-deduction-not-enough-for-administration/

Never knew it but Derby technically went albeit really briefly into administration in the past. 2004?

The points deductions for insolvency etc were not a thing when Derby went in briefly. 

They finished on 52 pts but had the 10 point rule been in place they may well have gone down...Walsall got 51 pts and finished 22nd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/11/2021 at 21:34, Hxj said:

mmmm - I would have more confidence in their arguments if:

1.  They discussed 'solely';

It comes down to which side of the fence you want to stand on:

  1. Without Covid, the club would have avoided admin completely 
  2. If the club was better run, the club could have avoided it despite Covid.
On 05/11/2021 at 21:34, Hxj said:

2.  They discussed the HMRC winding up petition in January 2020 and the proximity of the Administration to HMRC recommencing winding up petitions on 1 October 2021.

Was this potentially linked with a failed takeover/investment? Not the Fake Sheikh, but someone else?

On 05/11/2021 at 21:34, Hxj said:

3.  They could also tell me what happened to the £75 million odd owed to the football club for the ground.

I've been scratching my head over that since the beginning. 

Edited by AnotherDerbyFan
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Was this potentially linked with a failed takeover/investment?

I suspect that Mel got cold feet in 2019, thought he had sold the business and therefore stopped funding. 

This is also why later accounts were not submitted as the owner would need to agree to fund teh club for another year to be able an auditor to sign off on a going concern basis.  It would have been easy to agree with EFL that the accounts will be submitted and the FFP submissions revised following the outcome of the Tribunal.

If the 2020 tax is still outstanding and HMRC were threatening to restart winding up proceedings 'Solely' is looking dodgy.

Whilst you are here @AnotherDerbyFan what's your view on HMRC negotiating on the tax debt given their published view and their actions in voting against the acceptance of the proposals and subsequent court actions in Glasgow Rangers and Portsmouth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

It comes down to which side of the fence you want to stand on:

  1. Without Covid, the club would have avoided admin completely 
  2. If the club was better run, the club could have avoided it despite Covid.

Was this potentially linked with a failed takeover/investment? Not the Fake Sheikh, but someone else?

I've been scratching my head over that since the beginning. 

Is it just two options?  Is there no chance you’d have gone into administration at some point….or do you mean at this particular juncture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

I suspect that Mel got cold feet in 2019, thought he had sold the business and therefore stopped funding. 

This is also why later accounts were not submitted as the owner would need to agree to fund teh club for another year to be able an auditor to sign off on a going concern basis.  It would have been easy to agree with EFL that the accounts will be submitted and the FFP submissions revised following the outcome of the Tribunal.

If the 2020 tax is still outstanding and HMRC were threatening to restart winding up proceedings 'Solely' is looking dodgy.

Whilst you are here @AnotherDerbyFan what's your view on HMRC negotiating on the tax debt given their published view and their actions in voting against the acceptance of the proposals and subsequent court actions in Glasgow Rangers and Portsmouth?

I stand by the view that the accounts hadn't been submitted due to the ongoing amortisation case. The outcome of the amortisation appeal was to submit accounts in line with FRS102. The club and the EFL still couldn't agree on if the new accounts were compliant or not.

If there was a plan which took account of the HMRC tax, then I don't think that would be a problem.

It's up to HMRC as to whether they negotiate or not. If the do, then I expect tighter restrictions on the club than if it's paid in full. I would find it immoral to negotiate a few £m off the tax bill and then go out to spend money in January or the summer.

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Is it just two options?  Is there no chance you’d have gone into administration at some point….or do you mean at this particular juncture?

I assumed that there was enough money to get through to a point of self-sustainability, otherwise the appeal is pointless.

  • Like 2
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...