Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County


havanatopia

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

tarted to produce accounts

There's 'producing accounts', 'producing fully audit accounts to agreed international standard', 'producing impaired accounts' & 'producing fictional accounts'. Derby appear loathe to fulfill the second option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/01/2022 at 13:58, Davefevs said:

Can Morris be stopped from being a Director?

Potentially yes as the main reasons for disqualification are

image.png.37efef7358c7fe15f08744f9bf9eb614.png

 

https://www.gov.uk/company-director-disqualification 

There is an outstanding tax bill and accounts have had to be amended subsequently. However if the case went to court would be extremely messy and I would hazard Mel Morris would fight the disqualification all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

As expected.

I think I do remember hearing part if not all of that interview on the Totally Football League Show. I'll listen again.

From their forum it seems that there are going to be many meetings between the EFL, Quantuma, MPs, Derby Council, fans groups, Boro, and Wycmobe. Will anyone have time to actually do anything as a result of these meetings I wonder?

I wonder if Mel Boy will be invited. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Given the discussion in the House of Commons on Tuesday, I'll be very surprised if there isn't reform, no matter what the outcome for Derby is.

I would be amazed if the recent Governance report is not at least debated in the Commons off the back of this https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fan-led-review-of-football-governance-securing-the-games-future

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gol said:

I would be amazed if the recent Governance report is not at least debated in the Commons off the back of this https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fan-led-review-of-football-governance-securing-the-games-future

It's already been mentioned at length in the urgent question debate from a couple of days ago. It has cross-party support and is expected to be included in the Queen's Speech in the spring.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

It's already been mentioned at length in the urgent question debate from a couple of days ago. It has cross-party support and is expected to be included in the Queen's Speech in the spring.

Thanks I missed that, hopefully it does, what I have read of it sounds promising

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gol said:

I would be amazed if the recent Governance report is not at least debated in the Commons off the back of this https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fan-led-review-of-football-governance-securing-the-games-future

The problem with that report is it's the footballing equivalent of Monty Python's 'How To Do It'  sketch (look it up yung 'uns'.)

On the one hand they demand better and more timely financial diligence, on the other they demand 'parity' (sic) for Womens football (whilst acknowledging few wish to pay to watch or sponsor that, therefore such diligence as applied to the men's game would have to go out the window.)

Supporters Golden Shares are great in theory, but not if I'm the punter investing in the club. Why would I risk my investment if a bunch of potless herberts could scupper the way in which I desire to make the club a success? Isn't German football great? In some ways undoubtedly it is, but not according to the large clubs who bemoan such restriction prevents them from competing at the highest level of European competition.

'Heritage' and populism rarely mix. It's why monuments fall to rack and ruin & preservation organisations are run by middle aged, middle income, white folk. Have 'heritage football' by all means; get it off TV save for a few select highlights when games aren't being played, make punters realise if you want to see football you have to go to the game, ensure players earn no more than 6 times the average fan wage such there's an affinity between players and supporters,  ensure fans have access to 'shop price' Bovril & Wagon Wheels not 'restaurant price' mechanically recovered meat burgers with exotic flavourings, ensure newspaper back pages are filled with images of players playing, or dressed in comic attire pending the next cup fixture, not discussing their contract demands, excessive demonstrations of affluence, sexual predilections of the latest wanabee starlet, or appearing at Court for crimes committed. They claim 'heritage', they want no part of it.

Today fans WANT something they can't afford. No easy and quick solution to resolve that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update from the Administrators at An Update From The Joint Administrators Of Derby County Football Club - Blog - Derby County (dcfc.co.uk)

The most interesting bits (to me) are:

  • The implications are that the bids are not sufficient to meet the Football Creditors and other creditors rules.
  • The claims from Middlesbrough and Wycombe, highlighted below.  Without reading too much into the comments it would appear that the legal advice received from leading law firms and three QCs is not as dismissive of the merits of the claims as others seem to think they should be,

This statement provides a summary of progress to supporters and the media in respect of Derby County Football Club. As we have previously reported, we are dealing with a large number of sensitive issues and felt that issuing reactive statements in response to the recent statements issued by various related parties would at best be unhelpful and also may hinder or prejudice discussions we are having with the same parties. Our perceived lack of recent communication has therefore been both tactical and deliberate.

As we have seen from statements issued by others, sometimes these can be misinterpreted and prompt further questions. We are in receipt of a substantial number of messages from supporters, containing questions and supportive comments. We have prioritised our time to focus on the key matters at hand and expect this statement to go some way towards responding to the key questions arising from these messages.

We have set out below the key matters which we believe are relevant to ensuring the survival of Derby County Football Club. Whilst we have categorised those key matters, they are, in reality very closely linked. Whilst we have tried to be as clear and open as possible, there are matters, for reasons of confidentiality and sensitivity, which cannot be shared and we hope supporters and the media will understand the reasons for this.

1. Interested Parties

Whilst we have communicated previously, there has been a huge amount of interest from parties interested in acquiring the club. We have run a careful and diligent process and we are currently engaged in discussions with three of those parties, all of whom have the credibility to take the club on. Whilst we had hoped to have been able to announce formally our favoured bidder, this has not been possible to date as a result of the issues we will refer to later in this update. These discussions continue this week, and we remain hopeful that we will be able to announce the preferred bidder shortly. Due to the complex nature of these matters, we are unable today to commit to the specific date on which we will do this.We are, however, cognisant of the 1st February deadline as set by the EFL.

The key issues for the interested parties we are talking to are:

* The uncertainty around the claims from the two football league clubs and what impact that may have on the club going forward in the event these claims are not resolved during the administration.

* The uncertainty around the possibility of further sanctions from the EFL in the event the chosen bid does not deliver the financial compensation to pass the EFL rules around payment to both football creditors and other creditors.


Please note that the above issues have been subject to numerous discussions with both the EFL and others over the last few months and are extremely complex. They are also very sensitive, and we do not believe it to be helpful to discuss them in any detail in this update.

2. Claims from two Football League Clubs

These have been well documented both by us previously and more recently, by others making statements. We do not think it would be helpful, in view of the sensitivity of these matters, to elaborate on the discussions we have been having other than to confirm we are committed to dealing with these claims in the most expeditious manner. They are complex and are heavily disputed. Whilst the two claims have yet to be fully pleaded, we have taken advice from leading law firms and obtained three QC barristers opinions as to the merits of their claims and also the EFL current position.

We have highlighted different ways in which we believe these claims can be dealt with and we are in discussions with the EFL in this regard. As referred above, no interested party is willing to commit to acquiring the club without further clarity on these claims and we continue, tirelessly to find a solution to move matters forward.

3. Funding and the EFL position

We have maintained cordial and business-like relations with the EFL and are committed to continue with those. They are the regulator, and we understand and respect their rules. They have concerns about the time this process is taking, principally because of point 2 above, and have asked us for evidence that we have the ability to fund the club through to the end of the season in the event we are not able to successfully achieve an exit before then. The EFL have maintained this position throughout and our objective was always that once we had formalised our buyer, that we would work with that buyer to help with funding whilst the formalities of exiting the Administration were dealt with. That remains our intention and indeed discussions with those interested parties as referred above have focused on their commitment to provide that funding. The deadline for evidence of funding is 1st February, at which time the EFL have said that if they do not have firm evidence of funding, they will consider their position in terms of Derby’s ability to fulfil the fixture list. We have provided the EFL with 3 scenarios as to how that funding gap can be bridged and the EFL await further confirmation from us as to which scenario we plan to deliver. This will be dealt with over the next few days. In the interim, the EFL have confirmed that until as such time as they are satisfied with that evidence, they will not allow any new player registrations to take place and this does include player contract extensions.

4. Playing Squad and discussions with Wayne Rooney

We have maintained a regular dialogue with Wayne Rooney and indeed met with him on Tuesday this week. We are hugely impressed with his commitment and understanding of the position. We are also hugely impressed with the attitude and performance of the players in this very difficult time. We have explained the current position to Wayne Rooney and have committed to keeping him abreast of our progress. There have been some player exits but our position has always been that we would like to maintain the integrity and quality of the squad as best we can. That is still our intention.

We would like to assure everyone linked to the club that we are working tirelessly to achieve a successful outcome and still believe this is possible. We understand the frustrations of the supporters who are desperate for the club to survive and we are doing everything in our power to make this happen.

It is our intention to maintain open dialogue with you and will communicate as and when we have meaningful updates.

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

Supporters Golden Shares are great in theory, but not if I'm the punter investing in the club. Why would I risk my investment if a bunch of potless herberts could scupper the way in which I desire to make the club a success?

Golden shares don't envisage anything particularly difficult for potential investors. As described in the report they would give fans the right to stop owners changing the name, the strip or the location of the club. If a new buyer isn't prepared to invest unless they can move the club... then they can do one as far as I'm concerned!

Isn't German football great? In some ways undoubtedly it is, but not according to the large clubs who bemoan such restriction prevents them from competing at the highest level of European competition.

Business which are regulated will always want less regulation, that's life, but there's no reason they should have what they want. And there's no reason why that regulation if well structured should prevent those businesses from succeeding. The UK financial services sector is both highly regulated and a global success.

Today fans WANT something they can't afford. No easy and quick solution to resolve that.

Regulation will close the gap between what fans want and what they can afford. The unregulated wild west of English football (not just English football!) is why we've had such crazy player wage inflation and why clubs keep over-spending and going bust. Good regulation will allow clubs to flourish

 

I don't think the fan led review is unrealistic or undesirable. Lack of regulation has brought us to where we are now with most clubs losing money and a steady trickle of clubs going bust. We're seeing potential political interference in the case of DCFC's administration because for very good reasons it's not politically easy to let clubs go bust. Instead of the politicians rushing in with barely thought through interventions at the last minute when things go wrong, as they surely will again and again, wouldn't it be better if we had a regulatory framework to reduce the likelihood of that happening in the first place?

  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

upporters Golden Shares are great in theory, but not if I'm the punter investing in the club. Why would I risk my investment if a bunch of potless herberts could scupper the way in which I desire to make the club a success? Isn't German football great? In some ways undoubtedly it is, but not according to the large clubs who bemoan such restriction prevents them from competing at the highest level of European competition.

German league football is in most ways the worst of both worlds.  They can't get big individual investors as there are too many restrictions.  They don't actually have fan led governance either, all the crucial decisions are made by a small elite, the chairman and his elite gets to choose which candidates stand for each post, and what the fan base are allowed to otherwise vote on.  It is all 'smoke and mirrors'.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

 

I don't think the fan led review is unrealistic or undesirable. Lack of regulation has brought us to where we are now with most clubs losing money and a steady trickle of clubs going bust. We're seeing potential political interference in the case of DCFC's administration because for very good reasons it's not politically easy to let clubs go bust. Instead of the politicians rushing in with barely thought through interventions at the last minute when things go wrong, as they surely will again and again, wouldn't it be better if we had a regulatory framework to reduce the likelihood of that happening in the first place?

It would, but the ToR gives little hope of how that might be achieved? Existing regulation should have sought to prevent where we now are, but it didn't .

As with most political solutions the quick fix is to throw prudent folks money at other's failings. In this case football becoming reliant pretty much exclusively on The Premier, but if that's too onerous it'll kill that golden goose and their owners will look elsewhere. Sure will if the non-starter of womens parity is realised. Nowhere does the review seek to address the fundamental problem, that football's financing model at the top has little to do with fans in stadia. It talks of heritage grounds and communities whilst the reality is, even at our level, City receive more in solidarity and TV monies than it does from its own fans paying through the gate.

It's also good reason why politicians should never be let anywhere near the problem. If a badly run club goes bust is it really that bad a thing? If the fans really are there and willing to show support,(Wimbledon, FC United et al,) there will follow phoenix from the flames. But as Derby have shown that isn't what this is about. They want cake and eat it. Demand high price competition, just wanting to pay for it, whoever that impacts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hxj said:

German league football is in most ways the worst of both worlds.  They can't get big individual investors as there are too many restrictions.  They don't actually have fan led governance either, all the crucial decisions are made by a small elite, the chairman and his elite gets to choose which candidates stand for each post, and what the fan base are allowed to otherwise vote on.  It is all 'smoke and mirrors'.

Exactly, he who pays the piper and if you can't or won't pay why should he play your tune?

I'll give you a classic example of why fan power ain't worth a bean. I used to organize a few things at the London Branch of the Supporters club. A few of us would, through fanzines, T shirts and events raise quite decent sums which were used to subsidise those supporters less able to afford to get go fixtures. We built up a tidy reserve for such purposes and had a decent following. Now some egotists at the main Supporters Club got ideas above their station, thinking they too should sit on City's board, save they didn't have the wherewithal. In desperation and under threat they sequestered the London Branch funds. I immediately resigned, others quickly followed, subsidised trips stopped, nobody bothered with the supporters club at the ground, communications ceased and organized trips to games no longer took place. We each ended up doing our own thing. The 'token' board member lasted about as long as Scott Davison because, no **** Sherlock, if you can't back up decisions with funds, why are you there?

 

  • Robin 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest from the EFL - Derby County update - News - EFL Official Website - further useful information on 1 February deadline ... and breathe ...

 

 

During the past 72 hours, the EFL has met with a number of integral stakeholders including MPs, Government officials, local authorities and the Rams Trust to discuss the ongoing and challenging situation relating to Derby County.

In all of these discussions, the League has maintained its position that is seeking to work proactively with all relevant parties to find appropriate and expeditious solutions that will ultimately see the Club out of Administration and thriving under new ownership.

However, the EFL is disappointed to note that whilst this dialogue has been taking place there has been, and continues to be, a large amount of misinformation circulating in the public domain which is inaccurate, misleading and a distraction to the immediate objective of understanding how the Club can be funded in order to complete the current season.

One such claim made in the past 24 hours is that the EFL has questions to answer regarding a supposed deal reached with Middlesbrough FC linked to Disciplinary action being taken against Derby County for alleged Profitability and Sustainability breaches. These accusations are wholly untrue, serving as an unwelcome diversion to current matters that need swift and decisive action by Derby’s Administrators.

This claim was in fact heard and dismissed by an Independent Disciplinary Commission, the judgment of which was published in August 2020. With original charges lodged in January 2020 Derby County’s ownership argued that the agreed stay of proceedings by Middlesbrough FC against the EFL was an 'extraordinary bargain' with the Club bringing forward a series of procedural defences, one of which that EFL charges against Derby County were an ‘Abuse of Process’. After carefully considering all the evidence the Independent Commission rejected all of these allegations and claims entirely (see para 161 onwards here).

The League is similarly concerned by recent claims that suggests a broader resolution to ongoing issues is solely dependent on the claims from Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers being resolved, which are merely one part of a complex puzzle.

At present, the EFL is not in a position to make a determination as to the status of compensation claims by Middlesbrough and Wycombe under the terms of the EFL’s Articles of Association and/or Insolvency policy, as it could lead to additional action from those already interested parties and the wider membership of Clubs. The role of the EFL is to balance the interests of all 72 EFL Clubs and to make a unilateral decision either way could de-stabilise the competition and be viewed as reckless and unfair to all parties.

In an attempt to move this particular matter forward swiftly, the EFL has written to all parties with a proposed solution to negotiate a deal via independent legal mediation, alongside alternative options that would give clarity on the Football Creditors point quickly. The League is currently awaiting a response from all of those involved and it hopes to hear from all parties on the options proposed imminently.

Whilst clarity is also required as to the status of the claims from both Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers, it is also critical that progress on two fronts urgently be made:

Funding – The Administrator as a matter of urgency needs to clarify how it plans to fund Derby County for the remainder of the season. By the Administrator’s own forecasting, the Club will run out of cash by February, and therefore sourcing funds is of paramount importance to ensure they can compete for the rest of the season. This is not an artificial EFL deadline, but the reality of when we have been informed the money runs out.
Preferred Bidder – The EFL needs urgent clarification from the Administrator as to who the preferred bidder is. Without this clarification, no tangible progress can be made into solving the challenges associated with the claims.

In addition, further to a meeting with MPs yesterday, the EFL has agreed to take part in any additional collective dialogue between Derby County, Middlesbrough, Wycombe Wanderers, the Administrators, local Derby MPs and other relevant stakeholders that is requested and will progress matters.

While ultimately the affairs of Derby County remain solely in the care of the Administrators, the EFL is currently doing everything within its powers and remit to help navigate a solution. The League is exasperated that this has still not been resolved and that we are approaching the end of the transfer window and Administrators have still not provided us any guarantee of funds which are required under the terms of the League’s Insolvency Policy.

As a founder Member of the Football League with a proud history, the Club is of huge importance to the East Midlands, our competition and the wider football family and we all hope it can flourish once again in the future as a sustainable member of the EFL.

However, any resolution achieved cannot ignore or sidestep EFL Regulations or UK law and any solution needs to be found that satisfies the competition regulations and the terms of the EFL’s Insolvency Policy that was set and agreed by all 72 members, including Derby County.

As previously articulated, this a complicated set of circumstances that requires consideration of the EFL’s broader role as the body that oversees 72 member Clubs and not just those Clubs that may be affected at any one time. Any decision taken by the League must be taken on behalf of the interests of all its membership – including Derby County, Middlesbrough, and Wycombe Wanderers - and to ensure the long-term integrity of the League as a collective. 

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

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

He gives an excellent summary of the issues, and tempers it with sympathy for Derby fans. 

I enjoy Onuaha as well by the way. I think he's a great addition to the podcast. And Maguire has taught him as well!

On the other note, this exchange of public statements is some quite remarkable washing of laundry in public. I don't remember anything like this around other distressed clubs.

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

53 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

It would, but the ToR gives little hope of how that might be achieved? Existing regulation should have sought to prevent where we now are, but it didn't .

Starting point? Breakeven obligations on the cash flow, each year- preferably through natural means rather than owner injections. Whether that fits with the ToR I haven't looked at so closely.

If a club has a positive cashflow all the better or a breakeven that becomes positive through owner top up all good, but where problems can arise of course is where club has £10m cash inflow, but expends I don't know £20m cash and then the owner- through cash, equity etc- tops that up.

All well and good while the owner is happy or has the financial resources but when that ends or goes wrong...whereas if net naturally generated cash flow is a minimum of £0...the owner pulling or having to pull funding doesn't tip the club into insolvency at least not instantly. Okay that's not a magic bullet but a fairly good place to start I reckon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Starting point? Breakeven obligations on the cash flow, each year- preferably through natural means rather than owner injections. Whether that fits with the ToR I haven't looked at so closely.

If a club has a positive cashflow all the better or a breakeven that becomes positive through owner top up all good, but where problems can arise of course is where club has £10m cash inflow, but expends I don't know £20m cash and then the owner- through cash, equity etc- tops that up.

All well and good while the owner is happy or has the financial resources but when that ends or goes wrong...whereas if net naturally generated cash flow is a minimum of £0...the owner pulling or having to pull funding doesn't tip the club into insolvency at least not instantly. Okay that's not a magic bullet but a fairly good place to start I reckon.

Good idea but how even to get to that starting point?

For City, assuming little moving on the transfer front, we've to find £25m pet season  immediately. OK if fans are happy to quadruple the price of admittance. I won't hold my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derby's away fixture at 'Boro next month (if they last that long) could be a tasty one. 

Personally, I hope Derby get a stay of execution but it isn't looking good unless Morris gets involved and pays up for his vanity and arrogance.

I fear any changes in financial control may come too late to save them sadly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ska Junkie said:

Derby's away fixture at 'Boro next month (if they last that long) could be a tasty one. 

Personally, I hope Derby get a stay of execution but it isn't looking good unless Morris gets involved and pays up for his vanity and arrogance.

I fear any changes in financial control may come too late to save them sadly. 

I hear what you are saying, but very few teams actually do disappear. The EFL may have been happy to sit on their hands while that guy raped Bury FC but WRDC are “too big to be allowed to fail”. I reckon a ‘white knight’ will come in at the 11th hour and Morris will skulk off taking his twenty pence in the pound with him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Southport Red said:

I hear what you are saying, but very few teams actually do disappear. The EFL may have been happy to sit on their hands while that guy raped Bury FC but WRDC are “too big to be allowed to fail”. I reckon a ‘white knight’ will come in at the 11th hour and Morris will skulk off taking his twenty pence in the pound with him. 

 hope you're right Southport. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

 hope you're right Southport. 

Me too, much as I hate Derby’s cheating and the arrogance of some of their fans,I wouldn’t wish a club extinction on anyone. Morris will move on, the administrators will get paid their huge fees, the players will get new contracts, Rooney will be fine, but the ‘ordinary’ staff and fans will be left with nothing. Wouldn’t wish that on anyone. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Southport Red said:

I hear what you are saying, but very few teams actually do disappear. The EFL may have been happy to sit on their hands while that guy raped Bury FC but WRDC are “too big to be allowed to fail”. I reckon a ‘white knight’ will come in at the 11th hour and Morris will skulk off taking his twenty pence in the pound with him. 

Possibly but the white knight will have to come up with £50-60m plus any sums that might be payable to Boro and Wycombe and enough to meet the costs for the rest of this season but will still not own the stadium. A big ask.

Edited by chinapig
  • 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...