Jump to content
IGNORED

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


havanatopia
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

I think a far more likely scenario for them is the one we faced in 81/2, the league make them get rid of any experienced players as contracts expire & they end up playing kids.

People forget this but we were (from memory) 14th when this happened, picked up 2 draws in our next 11 games & went down as a result.

They’re buggered, either way.

So long as the punishment fits the crime - Mike Ashley buying them would be a good start 😀 Have some of that y'cheatin *******!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Pretty unambiguous that.

Unless you're a Derby fan, apparently. 

They are just burying their heads in the sand as they can't believe their club can be in this mess,

I generally believe this is the beginning of the end for the club,

Mel doesn't want to sell the ground as it is worth 80 million (that's what they told the efl wasn't it)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Pretty unambiguous that.

Unless you're a Derby fan, apparently. 

True. I don't for a second think the EFL actually want to kill off one of the oldest clubs in the country.

Now for my digression.

I have great sympathy for Derby fans who are seriously looking at their club going bust, ceasing to exist. We all know that our club has faced this before. 40 years ago maybe, but it's happened. I wasn't alive at that point, but many on here were.

I hate that it has to get to this point. There should be mechanisms in place to stop it, or to help clubs when it does happen. Clubs that cheat should be punished, severely, but there should also be systems - systems that extend beyond the EFL and its remit - that protect these unique and treasured cultural and societal assets in the UK.

That's why I've thrown my small support behind the Fan Led Review, as although it's recommendations for change may yet prove imperfect, they are at least proposals for change.

Something has to change or we will see more of this at our level of the pyramid.

 

  • Like 5
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

True. I don't for a second think the EFL actually want to kill off one of the oldest clubs in the country.

Now for my digression.

I have great sympathy for Derby fans who are seriously looking at their club going bust, ceasing to exist. We all know that our club has faced this before. 40 years ago maybe, but it's happened. I wasn't alive at that point, but many on here were.

I hate that it has to get to this point. There should be mechanisms in place to stop it, or to help clubs when it does happen. Clubs that cheat should be punished, severely, but there should also be systems - systems that extend beyond the EFL and its remit - that protect these unique and treasured cultural and societal assets in the UK.

That's why I've thrown my small support behind the Fan Led Review, as although it's recommendations for change may yet prove imperfect, they are at least proposals for change.

Something has to change or we will see more of this at our level of the pyramid.

 

You raise a very very important point.

When 8 men had a dream for financial uncertainty and potential unemployment, are those who sing in remembrance acknowledging this now quoting 40 years, rather than 30?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The administrators have issued the following statement:

"The joint administrators are very much aware of the heightened speculation as to the future of DCFC - such speculation was not helped by yesterday’s press reports following a meeting of the EFL board yesterday (Thursday). This statement hopefully addresses some of the concerns as well as setting out the current position in relation to the administration.

As we have previously reported there has been considerable interest from a number of credible parties. There are currently three parties who have made offers. One of the Joint Administrators duties is to act in the interest of all creditors, and this includes secured creditors, preferential creditors and the unsecured (“ordinary") creditors owed monies by the club.

In relation to a football insolvency this duty is further compounded by dealing with those creditors known as “football creditors” which need to be dealt with in order to protect the club’s ongoing membership of the English Football League. The Joint Administrators have an exit plan ready to implement and be approved by creditors and this is with a view to adjusting offers received to accommodate the EFL insolvency policy and their requirements to creditors.

The difficulty and currently, in our view, the last remaining significant obstacle is to deal with certain claims that are very much disputed but which we are being advised by the EFL cannot be currently compromised notwithstanding statute says otherwise. Whilst we accept this is frustrating for all, none of the interested parties are able to progress matters further until such time that an agreement can be reached.

Linked to the above is the need to ensure the club can be funded, if needs be, over the coming months or until we have successfully complete a sale. The EFL have demanded that we prove adequate funding is in place and until as such time as we are able to do that, they will not progress player registrations – this includes some players where contracts needed to be extended this month.

Whilst we have a number of options as to how that funding can be delivered, we are not, today, in a position to finalise this funding however we do believe this will be finalised in the coming weeks.

We are aware of yesterday’s press comments, however, the position is not straight forward bearing in mind the position of other stakeholders. We are urgently seeking clarification from the EFL as to why these disputed claims cannot be compromised."

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

7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The administrators have issued the following statement:

"The joint administrators are very much aware of the heightened speculation as to the future of DCFC - such speculation was not helped by yesterday’s press reports following a meeting of the EFL board yesterday (Thursday). This statement hopefully addresses some of the concerns as well as setting out the current position in relation to the administration.

As we have previously reported there has been considerable interest from a number of credible parties. There are currently three parties who have made offers. One of the Joint Administrators duties is to act in the interest of all creditors, and this includes secured creditors, preferential creditors and the unsecured (“ordinary") creditors owed monies by the club.

In relation to a football insolvency this duty is further compounded by dealing with those creditors known as “football creditors” which need to be dealt with in order to protect the club’s ongoing membership of the English Football League. The Joint Administrators have an exit plan ready to implement and be approved by creditors and this is with a view to adjusting offers received to accommodate the EFL insolvency policy and their requirements to creditors.

The difficulty and currently, in our view, the last remaining significant obstacle is to deal with certain claims that are very much disputed but which we are being advised by the EFL cannot be currently compromised notwithstanding statute says otherwise. Whilst we accept this is frustrating for all, none of the interested parties are able to progress matters further until such time that an agreement can be reached.

Linked to the above is the need to ensure the club can be funded, if needs be, over the coming months or until we have successfully complete a sale. The EFL have demanded that we prove adequate funding is in place and until as such time as we are able to do that, they will not progress player registrations – this includes some players where contracts needed to be extended this month.

Whilst we have a number of options as to how that funding can be delivered, we are not, today, in a position to finalise this funding however we do believe this will be finalised in the coming weeks.

We are aware of yesterday’s press comments, however, the position is not straight forward bearing in mind the position of other stakeholders. We are urgently seeking clarification from the EFL as to why these disputed claims cannot be compromised."

Whatever their competence or otherwise as administrators their written English is appalling and this addresses none of the concerns. Though bleating about the EFL will go down well with Derby fans who still seem to believe the rules shouldn't apply to them.

I take para 4 to be a reference to the claims from Boro and Wycombe, though it is particularly badly written. They do not in any event explain what they mean by statute. Do they mean the law or EFL regs for instance?

Whatever, announcement of a preferred bidder was supposed to be imminent before the new year, then earlier this week it was going to be a day or two. Now none of the alleged interested parties can proceed and securing funding to complete the season may take weeks it seems.

The doomsday clock is perilously close to midnight.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Whatever their competence or otherwise as administrators their written English is appalling and this addresses none of the concerns. Though bleating about the EFL will go down well with Derby fans who still seem to believe the rules shouldn't apply to them.

I take para 4 to be a reference to the claims from Boro and Wycombe, though it is particularly badly written. They do not in any event explain what they mean by statute. Do they mean the law or EFL regs for instance?

Whatever, announcement of a preferred bidder was supposed to be imminent before the new year, then earlier this week it was going to be a day or two. Now none of the alleged interested parties can proceed and securing funding to complete the season may take weeks it seems.

The doomsday clock is perilously close to midnight.

I thought this was interesting:

36 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

We are urgently seeking clarification from the EFL as to why these disputed claims cannot be compromised."

Especially “compromised”.  Is that concession of a lower amount, a payment plan, or just simply we want to conclude a sale without that burdening it, and it the buyer will need to deal with that after the sale.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

You raise a very very important point.

When 8 men had a dream for financial uncertainty and potential unemployment, are those who sing in remembrance acknowledging this now quoting 40 years, rather than 30?

The 8 had, for obvious reasons, only their own and their family interests at heart.

Lest not forget they were given their registrations such they could earn their livings elsewhere, plus eventually received around half the value of their outstanding contracts.

Those who were around remember the detail well and, no, we don't sing that stupid song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Whatever their competence or otherwise as administrators their written English is appalling and this addresses none of the concerns. Though bleating about the EFL will go down well with Derby fans who still seem to believe the rules shouldn't apply to them.

I take para 4 to be a reference to the claims from Boro and Wycombe, though it is particularly badly written. They do not in any event explain what they mean by statute. Do they mean the law or EFL regs for instance?

Whatever, announcement of a preferred bidder was supposed to be imminent before the new year, then earlier this week it was going to be a day or two. Now none of the alleged interested parties can proceed and securing funding to complete the season may take weeks it seems.

The doomsday clock is perilously close to midnight.

I agree entirely; particularly in so far as it concerns Quantuma's written English.

If Quantuma are referring to Statute, as in English Law, then they would presumably have used a capital letter, but, given the rest of their statement, I am none too sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The difficulty and currently, in our view, the last remaining significant obstacle is to deal with certain claims that are very much disputed but which we are being advised by the EFL cannot be currently compromised notwithstanding statute says otherwise. Whilst we accept this is frustrating for all, none of the interested parties are able to progress matters further until such time that an agreement can be reached.

My take on this is that this is another area where the EFL regulations rub uncomfortably against the legislation.  The insolvency legislation quite clearly allows a debt to be compromised, settled in amounts or terms different from what is potentially due.  EFL Regulations state that all 'Football Creditors' have to be paid in full.  The Middlesbrough and Wycombe amounts, if they are successful, are clearly 'Football Creditors'.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compromised- I assume the EFL are wanting it to be settled one way or another, whereas Quantuma want the new owner to take it on. Chances are it would have to be settled via an EFL Arbitration- Dispute between clubs.

@Hxj has mentioned it before but one risk with Quantuma's approach is that Middlesbrough and Wycombe win and then the new owner therefore has a contingent liability that crystalises- as if they win they become football creditors probably, and in that scenario the club or the new owner would need to stump up another £50m or risk being kicked out of the League.

The problem is that this takes time and presumably money- something that Derby severely lack as it would have to go before the relevant Arbitration Hearing, assume each would be heard separately- how long would that take??

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

41 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Whatever their competence or otherwise as administrators their written English is appalling and this addresses none of the concerns. Though bleating about the EFL will go down well with Derby fans who still seem to believe the rules shouldn't apply to them.

I take para 4 to be a reference to the claims from Boro and Wycombe, though it is particularly badly written. They do not in any event explain what they mean by statute. Do they mean the law or EFL regs for instance?

Whatever, announcement of a preferred bidder was supposed to be imminent before the new year, then earlier this week it was going to be a day or two. Now none of the alleged interested parties can proceed and securing funding to complete the season may take weeks it seems.

The doomsday clock is perilously close to midnight.

I copied this from the local Derby press website, so it may have been edited - although was in quotation marks so should be verbatim. Yes it's very poorly written.

In the first sentence of para 4 I think they are trying to explain that the biggest obstacle is the claims by Boro and Wycombe. Derby/Quantuma 'very much dispute' those claims (although it isn't made clear exactly what they dispute - basis, details, facts, application and interpretation of laws/regs to the facts, quantum, maybe all of it?). Then I think they are saying that the EFL 'advise' that the claims by Boro and Wycombe must not be 'compromised'. Derby/Quantuma think that statute (?) says that the claims can be 'compromised'.

It is an absolute disgrace of a sentence. As  @Davefevs says - what on earth does the word 'compromised' mean in this context?

I think Hxj answers @PHILINFRANCE's reasonable question regarding the 'statute' they allude to.

10 minutes ago, Hxj said:

My take on this is that this is another area where the EFL regulations rub uncomfortably against the legislation.  The insolvency legislation quite clearly allows a debt to be compromised, settled in amounts or terms different from what is potentially due.  EFL Regulations state that all 'Football Creditors' have to be paid in full.  The Middlesbrough and Wycombe amounts, if they are successful, are clearly 'Football Creditors'.

In all it's clearly messy, and as I said earlier today I think that Derby/Quantuma and the EFL (and their various legal teams) are having a big argument over, as Hxj puts it, the way in which the EFL regulations rub uncomfortably against the legislation. Communication has been muddied and has not been effective.

Edit: just to add that if Derby/Quantuma are arguing that the insolvency laws as set out in legislation/statute should take precedence over the EFL's own regulations, I would be minded to agree with them (bearing in mind I have not been briefed on the detail of their argument).

Edited by ExiledAjax
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be getting into the realms of conspiracy 🙃 here but Birch and Andronikou have history- and not in a positive way!

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/feb/20/portsmouth-administrator-conflict

Andronikou was the administrator the first time around and Birch appointed the 2nd time around. Andronikou of course is part of Quantuma's input at Derby although Hosking seems to be the main point of contact with the media etc.

In fact, elements of this Derby administration are quite similar to Portsmouth- not least the HMRC debt being huge but also the administrators looking for loopholes, workarounds- think Portsmouth were looking at an appeal vs a) Their PL points deduction in 2010 and b) Their European ban in the event they qualified via the FA Cup- banned as being in administration fell foul of some criteria or another.

All sounds like a familiar tune??

Also he managed to get out of HMRC being able to block a CVA IIRC, disputed amount linked to Image Rights or somesuch.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

True. I don't for a second think the EFL actually want to kill off one of the oldest clubs in the country.

Now for my digression.

I have great sympathy for Derby fans who are seriously looking at their club going bust, ceasing to exist. We all know that our club has faced this before. 40 years ago maybe, but it's happened. I wasn't alive at that point, but many on here were.

I hate that it has to get to this point. There should be mechanisms in place to stop it, or to help clubs when it does happen. Clubs that cheat should be punished, severely, but there should also be systems - systems that extend beyond the EFL and its remit - that protect these unique and treasured cultural and societal assets in the UK.

That's why I've thrown my small support behind the Fan Led Review, as although it's recommendations for change may yet prove imperfect, they are at least proposals for change.

Something has to change or we will see more of this at our level of the pyramid.

 

Although I can agree with your sentiments regarding fans. Unfortunately fans are not appreciated anymore only as “cash cows”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Edit: just to add that if Derby/Quantuma are arguing that the insolvency laws as set out in legislation/statute should take precedence over the EFL's own regulations, I would be minded to agree with them (bearing in mind I have not been briefed on the detail of their argument).

And that takes us back to the, almost, beginning.  So if insolvency law takes precedence then presumably 'Football Creditors' are simply a subset of 'Unsecured Creditors' under insolvency law, and therefore have no special treatment? 

Hence the mess Derby are in.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have the utmost sympathy for the Derby fans, even their 'EFL on strings' comments can be considered as 'banter', and I think it was admirable that they clubbed together to settle the debt due to St. John's Ambulance.

What angers me about Derby, however, or, rather, about Mel Morris, is the fact that he couldn't bring himself to settle the SJA debt himself: it surely couldn't have been huge and, even bearing in the mind the loss he has suffered due to his ill-fated Derby adventure, he is still a multi-millionaire.

I shall certainly shed no tears should Derby County be liquidated, and I just wonder how he (Mel Morris) will feel as the proud owner of an £80 Million (🤣) football stadium with no team to play in it.    

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hxj said:

And that takes us back to the, almost, beginning.  So if insolvency law takes precedence then presumably 'Football Creditors' are simply a subset of 'Unsecured Creditors' under insolvency law, and therefore have no special treatment? 

Hence the mess Derby are in.

Honestly, I suspect the answer from the EFL is:

  1. we agree that insolvency law trumps our regulations; and
  2. we aren't stopping you from exiting administration, if you've got a deal with creditors then you (the company) can do that right now under insolvency law; but
  3. unless you also adhere to our rules - which say you have to satisfy 'Football Creditors' - then it's off to the National League with you as we're a private members league and have our own rules as well.

Trouble there of course is that it is hard enough to get someone to buy a failing Championship/L1 club and satisfy tens of millions of pounds worth of debt...no one is going to do that for a non-league club.

And so we are back at the beginning, with a club that has no residual value, mountains of debt, saleable assets, and ends up bust.

And all because the old regime cheated, gained competitive advantage through that cheating, and then got caught.

4 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I shall certainly shed no tears should Derby County be liquidated, and I just wonder how he (Mel Morris) will feel as the proud owner of an £80 Million (🤣) football stadium with no team to play in it.    

Imagine if he starts up Derby City FC. The scenes.

Edited by ExiledAjax
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Honestly, I suspect the answer from the EFL is:

  1. we agree that insolvency law trumps our regulations

The trouble is that the EFL think that their ‘Football Creditor’ rules trump insolvency laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The trouble is that the EFL think that their ‘Football Creditor’ rules trump insolvency laws.

In theory then, in extremis.

Could a Court rule one way on categories, priorities of insolvency and creditors but the EFL expel or suspend Derby for not fulfilling their criteria ie Football Creditor Regs. Mad though it sounds.

While I'm at it and @ExiledAjax too- what extent does the fact Derby's accounts had to be restated owing not solely to overspending but the fact that they were ruled in breach of FRS 102 enhance this problem?

ie Overspending plus ruled/claimed breach of FRS 102=Enhanced basis of claim against Derby.

Whereas otherwise compliant accounts that saw overspending, well that is unequivocally a sporting sanction (points deduction).

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still remain more concerned that the accountants/auditors/HMRC and the legal system allow so many clubs to continue for too long as insolvent businesses. What has happened at Derby should be a criminal issue not an EFL one. But that is wishful thinking and it is the same outside of football as we know. Though the ground issue at Derby is looking more suspect by the day. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

My take on this is that this is another area where the EFL regulations rub uncomfortably against the legislation.  The insolvency legislation quite clearly allows a debt to be compromised, settled in amounts or terms different from what is potentially due.  EFL Regulations state that all 'Football Creditors' have to be paid in full.  The Middlesbrough and Wycombe amounts, if they are successful, are clearly 'Football Creditors'.

Included in that is hmrc now,

So I'd it isn't paid in full the country is losing out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The trouble is that the EFL think that their ‘Football Creditor’ rules trump insolvency laws.

But they do, if Derby don't abide by the football leagues rules then Derby can't join the football league,

They are the same rules for all 72 members and voted upon by all 72 members, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Could a Court rule one way on categories, priorities of insolvency and creditors but the EFL expel or suspend Derby for not fulfilling their criteria ie Football Creditor Regs.

Yep - that's the point I have been making badly since Derby went into Administration.

 

44 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

I still remain more concerned that the accountants/auditors/HMRC and the legal system allow so many clubs to continue for too long as insolvent businesses.

An insolvent business is one which cannot pay debts when due (simplified I accept).  The 'Going Concern' report in Bristol City accounts is extensive and explains that the shareholder has agreed to keep the company solvent for at least the next 12 months, that deals with that issue.  I have also argued that this is the main reason why Derby failed to submit accounts, Morris did not want to give that guarantee.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Honestly, I suspect the answer from the EFL is:

  1. we agree that insolvency law trumps our regulations; and
  2. we aren't stopping you from exiting administration, if you've got a deal with creditors then you (the company) can do that right now under insolvency law; but
  3. unless you also adhere to our rules - which say you have to satisfy 'Football Creditors' - then it's off to the National League with you as we're a private members league and have our own rules as well.

Trouble there of course is that it is hard enough to get someone to buy a failing Championship/L1 club and satisfy tens of millions of pounds worth of debt...no one is going to do that for a non-league club.

And so we are back at the beginning, with a club that has no residual value, mountains of debt, saleable assets, and ends up bust.

And all because the old regime cheated, gained competitive advantage through that cheating, and then got caught.

Imagine if he starts up Derby City FC. The scenes.

I think those 3 points sum it up for me and help answer why it’s a mess…especially point 3.  I was struggling to wrap my head around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think those 3 points sum it up for me and help answer why it’s a mess…especially point 3.  I was struggling to wrap my head around it.

Gibbo always knew he holds Derby and Mel Boy by the balls. Wycombe bloke now knows too. Any other club want to make a claim. 

Edited by REDOXO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

What I don't get is how on earth can Derby ask to sign players as they seem to want to do?

Why on earth would a contracted player go there is another question?

Even under a transfer embargo you can sign players,

Granted they are only on the free or loan and must not breach a wage threshold, and finally once you have 24 players (youth over 17 on professional contracts count towards this I think)

Then you can no longer sign anyone,

As for ooc players going their, some go to be in the shop window, some because they have nothing else and some because they want the challenge

  • 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

×
×
  • Create New...