Derby County

[AnotherDerbyFan]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I always thought that the first, possibly sole duty of administrators was to creditors but a few have suggested on here that indeed the current policy does serve their interests.

Another interesting snippet I read, Derby have a policy of not selling players to Nottingham Forest.

In normal times fair enough, but if it's the best or sole offer does this clash with duty to creditors?

I hope that both creditors and perhaps Nottingham Forest are watching developments closely.

Because we rejected a derisory offer for Buchanan? I think it was so bad, we would have been better off letting his contract expire in the summer and get the standard compensation for player under 24.

[lenred]

6 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Because we rejected a derisory offer for Buchanan? I think it was so bad, we would have been better off letting his contract expire in the summer and get the standard compensation for player under 24.

If you reach the summer…..

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Because we rejected a derisory offer for Buchanan? I think it was so bad, we would have been better off letting his contract expire in the summer and get the standard compensation for player under 24.

If it was the biggest bid then I hope they are watching- or creditors are anyway? Although if it was a derisory bid then perhaps...

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting post by John Percy- and an interesting thread by a SENSIBLE Derby fan who seems to have pulled some of the threads together,

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Derby are not a special case.

Theoretically maybe. But do you really think the EFL see them as equivalent to Bury? They knew they could let Bury die with very little backlash despite their role in waving through dodgy owners.

Likewise the media whose response to Bury's demise was basically "Oh dear, never mind, ooh look Man Utd have tweeted something we can make a clickbait story out of".

[REDOXO]

I’m so confused now! Bidders have met the asking price of a club with in excess of 25m in inland revenue debt and up to or maybe beyond another 25m of debt to various loan sharks etc plus all the local businesses and ongoing cash flow to players?
 

There is no ground that belongs to the club, the ground actually belongs to a shell within a shell company that is controlled by the guy that didn’t pay the taxes of his players and there are outstanding claims from football clubs who contend they have suffered tangible losses from the actions of the former owner!

Yet three groups have met the asking price?…..But there is no preferred bidder because the administrator can not quantify what the price needs to be for an exit, thus their can not be an asking price. Even if there were a tangible asking price it would be the amount that covers debt with unsecured debtors getting no more than 25p on the pound and an expectation that at a minimum the inland revenue would except 25% down payment and a payment plan to run for years at an interest rate of about 4% and Mel Morris paying back the money he personally secured from the loan sharks. 
 

Yep I can see how The EFL, Wycombe and Gibson are completely responsible for this shit show. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more possible solution as far as the Middlesbrough and Wycombe cases go too.

1. Derby get taken over but the claims are still to be heard/pending.
2. New owners can choose to honour it- however if the claims are upheld or upheld albeit with a lower amount it matters not what the new owner or the club say because...
3. ...They would be football creditors- Embargo? -15? Or- better yet to guarantee payment- you divert central awards and TV money to Middlesbrough and Wycombe, either in full or say 1/3-50% whatever per year until such time as Middlesbrough and Wycombe paid off.

Could you do that cash diversion thing and impose an embargo while said football creditors- if it reached that stage- remain unpaid, or would that be double jeopardy?

You also don't permit a takeover under EFL Regs unless and until such time as there is either a settlement, determination of the claims or an undertaking to contest and if necessary honour such claims by the new owners.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

44 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

All 3 are willing to pay what is needed provided stadium or claims are out of the picture. 
If the claims are either dismissed or they're ruled as non-footballing creditors,

It's easy to appear keen to buy Derby, we've all seen the suitors come and go.  It's also easy to make a conditional bid that you know has no prospect of progressing.

In reality there are no bids that can progress. 

If Middlesbrough and Wycombe want their day in front of the LAP, why don't the Binnies or Appleby simply enter into a period of exclusivity and take them on?

Would Ashley really let a rival take over the club for a few million, or is he looking to cut Morris out completely, which he knows will fail.

[REDOXO]

10 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It's easy to appear keen to buy Derby, we've all seen the suitors come and go.  It's also easy to make a conditional bid that you know has no prospect of progressing.

In reality there are no bids that can progress. 

If Middlesbrough and Wycombe want their day in front of the LAP, why don't the Binnies or Appleby simply enter into a period of exclusivity and take them on?

Would Ashley really let a rival take over the club for a few million, or is he looking to cut Morris out completely, which he knows will fail.

My point exactly.

Quantuma and Derby fans seem to pin their hopes on making Wycombe and Middlesbrough just go away, holding their hands up saying it was all just a big ruse with no hope of winning just like you all said. That simply is not going to happen, but even if it did the issues with the ground the Inland Revenue and Mel Morris personal debt remain. 
 

How on earth can a football club go from being run be a cheat and a liar with its supporters by and large egging him on to having the worst administrators in the history of administration! 
 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It's easy to appear keen to buy Derby, we've all seen the suitors come and go.  It's also easy to make a conditional bid that you know has no prospect of progressing.

In reality there are no bids that can progress. 

If Middlesbrough and Wycombe want their day in front of the LAP, why don't the Binnies or Appleby simply enter into a period of exclusivity and take them on?

Would Ashley really let a rival take over the club for a few million, or is he looking to cut Morris out completely, which he knows will fail.

They can though still remain solvent for as long as MSD keep pumping money in though and I have to ask, what is in it for MSD to keep throwing good money after bad? Or is it a case of chasing their losses in the hope that a preferred bidder pays them in full.

That aside, there is also a two part ruling that suggests a) No club can be in administration for no longer than 18 months- 14 months to get it resolved then and b) No club can start two successive seasons in administation- mid-late March 2023 is the final, final deadline if nothing moves and MSD are happy to keep lending.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Coupon]

The cynic in me thinks that Mel Morris would want the club to fold in order to be able to sell and develop the football ground? I don't know if that is feasible or not! But it would definitely be a theory as to why the goalposts keep moving with regard to bidders/bids.

[REDOXO]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They can though still remain solvent for as long as MSD keep pumping money in though and I have to ask, what is in it for MSD to keep throwing good money after bad?

That aside, there is also a two part ruling that suggests a) No club can be in administration for no longer than 18 months- 14 months to get it resolved then and b) No club can start two successive seasons in administation- mid-late March 2023 is the final, final deadline if nothing moves and MSD are happy to keep lending.

Surely MSD will not be providing unsecured loans, particularly at this stage? The only thing Derby have is a name and a few players, thus who is underwriting any new debt?

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Surely MSD will not be providing unsecured loans, particularly at this stage? The only thing Derby have is a name and a few players, thus who is underwriting any new debt?

Pretty sure their source of funding would be MSD although we can only guess. I did read something that suggested that Mel Morris was allowing borrowing against Pride Park in order to give Derby some loans or somesuch.

Surely though, a good example- and this goes for both MSD and HMRC- would be to pull the plug, to wind up- to show clubs and similar businesses that yes we will wind you up if your debt to us gets out of hand.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[REDOXO]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Pretty sure their source of funding would be MSD although we can only guess.

If any new loans are not secured by an individual/a group/ or company then the only thing that makes sense is MSD is involved with one or all of the bids. 
 

They forgive the debt to them by Morris own the ground and have a stake in the club. Morris himself could be the problem if that’s the case and the whole Wycombe Boro thing is the red herring Gibson says it is. 

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

All 3 are willing to pay what is needed provided stadium or claims are out of the picture. 

My understanding is to date not one of the bids covers that owed to HMRC, let alone guaranteed creditors. What's 'needed' is for Derby to pay it's debts and that includes to the taxpayer. Derby fans shouldn't be so choosy as to what debt they think they should pay and that where they're happy for creditors to whistle. It's that attitude that turns non-plussed fans toward hoping the EFL blow the whistle on Derby one last time.

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

My understanding is to date not one of the bids covers that owed to HMRC, let alone guaranteed creditors. What's 'needed' is for Derby to pay it's debts and that includes to the taxpayer. Derby fans shouldn't be so choosy as to what debt they think they should pay and that where they're happy for creditors to whistle. It's that attitude that turns non-plussed fans toward hoping the EFL blow the whistle on Derby one last time.

I think the talk or what they would like is a 75% reduction on the HMRC debt- seen figures of £7-8m mooted, that's of a £28-29m debt pile to HMRC alone.

Of course in theory if you can pay HMRC around 25%, that means that a court might also rule that dissenting creditors should accept that- and tbh is 25p in the £ to unsecured creditors better than one might reasonably get? Possibly! Cross class cram down etc- if you hit that 25% or so then avoiding a 15 point deduction becomes that much more likely because if unsecured creditors get less then there is a further 15 point deduction.

Football creditors must be met in full and in addition they seem to be trying to bat away the legitimate claims- or at least the legitimate right of the claims to be heard- of Middlesbrough and Wycombe or crammed down to a tiny amount. Heard/classed as unsecured creditors rather than football creditors- that kinda thing.

The lack of contrition from a lot of Derby fans is pretty incredible really- some still claim that their amortisation methods were correct as just one example. A good chunk of them aren't bothered how it's done as long as they still have a club. That bit aside, they still see themselves as victims I reckon a reasonable number of them.

They seem to have a strong % of entitled fans, Derby.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[BTRFTG]

In all this posturing one thing that's gotten lost is what's the value of the ground?

MSD have a charge against the ground - with recent loans that's now probably just over the £20m mark. Now the ground last 'sold' (sic) for a market value of £81m, though never near worth that. Could MSD get £20m back by forcing the sale of the ground for development? Possibly. Would Morris stump up the £20m to MSD to retain the ground for himself? More likely.

Bidders do not appear to have the wherewithal or desire to buy the ground, so are they negotiating to take it on a long term lease? Likely, owing to it's nature, any commercial rent required from a landlord to reflect its value would tip the deal into a capital rather than operating lease (the asset effectively a virtual freehold.) Cash side makes zip difference but in accounting terms it means the asset value and amortization hits the leaseholder account and that could be a major problem for a Div 1 side. Hence back to what's the ground worth?  Say it's £50m and Derby take a 15 year lease. Not only is the football club looking at a couple of a million to lease the ground each year, but they're also having to account for a capital 'loss' of over £3m. Not sure if that gets reflected in the FFP scheme of things but if it does that's a major fly in the ointment.

[BTRFTG]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think the talk or what they would like is a 75% reduction on the HMRC debt- seen figures of £7-8m mooted, that's of a £28-29m debt pile to HMRC alone.

Of course in theory if you can pay HMRC around 25%, that means that a court might also rule that dissenting creditors should accept that- and tbh is 25p in the £ to unsecured creditors better than one might reasonably get? Possibly! Cross class cram down etc- if you hit that 25% or so then avoiding a 15 point deduction becomes that much more likely because if unsecured creditors get less then there is a further 15 point deduction.

Football creditors must be met in full and in addition they seem to be trying to bat away the legitimate claims- or at least the legitimate right of the claims to be heard- of Middlesbrough and Wycombe or crammed down to a tiny amount. Heard/classed as unsecured creditors rather than football creditors- that kinda thing.

The lack of contrition from a lot of Derby fans is pretty incredible really- some still claim that their amortisation methods were correct as just one example. A good chunk of them aren't bothered how it's done as long as they still have a club. That bit aside, they still see themselves as victims I reckon a reasonable number of them.

They seem to have a strong % of entitled fans, Derby.

Indeed, it's as though there's an optional class of debt it's wholly justified to walk away from. HMRC must stand firm on this one and if that means they ultimately get less back whilst sending a strong message to all they aren't to be messed with, then I think that a price worth paying.

[REDOXO]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think the talk or what they would like is a 75% reduction on the HMRC debt- seen figures of £7-8m mooted, that's of a £28-29m debt pile to HMRC alone.

Of course in theory if you can pay HMRC around 25%, that means that a court might also rule that dissenting creditors should accept that- and tbh is 25p in the £ to unsecured creditors better than one might reasonably get? Possibly! Cross class cram down etc.

Football creditors must be met in full and they seem to be trying to bat away the legitimate claims- or at least the legitimate right of the claims to be heard- of Middlesbrough and Wycombe or crammed down to a tiny amount.

The lack of contrition from a lot of Derby fans is pretty incredible really- some still claim that their amortisation methods were correct as just one example. A good chunk of them aren't bothered how it's done as long as they still have a club. That bit aside, they still see themselves as victims I reckon a reasonable number of them.

An attempt at Cross class cram down is interesting thought but in order to cram down debt it would have to be defined! That raises the heat on Derby to settle with Boro and Wycombe and the moment they do they will try and wriggle out of it unless verbiage is put in the agreement. Either way for now it’s a bit of a red herring. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

An attempt at Cross class cram down is interesting thought but in order to cram down debt it would have to be defined! That raises the heat on Derby to settle with Boro and Wycombe and the moment they do they will try and wriggle out of it unless verbiage is put in the agreement. Either way for now it’s a bit of a red herring. 

Like I said earlier- they can try and wriggle out but if ruled in favour of Middlesbrough and Wycombe the EFL can pay it for them perhaps?

Out of Derby's TV money and central awards- until such time as the liability has been met- because if the two clubs get a ruling in their favour, they surely would be classed as football creditors. Could a transfer embargo while the debt is outstanding also be a useful bit of leverage?

[Sleepy1968]

3 hours ago, Robin101 said:

Perhaps this is a terrible thing to say, but does no one else think that Derby fans might actually have quite a lot of fun following their club from Division 10 back to the football league? A phoenix Derby County would be playing at a decent level within a handful of seasons. 

I appreciate that there's people's jobs on the line, and the economic hit to the region would be significant. But from a purely footballing perspective?

You're obviousl;y quite young. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to wait 10-20 years for this to happen.

[REDOXO]

49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Like I said earlier- they can try and wriggle out but if ruled in favour of Middlesbrough and Wycombe the EFL can pay it for them perhaps?

Out of Derby's TV money and central awards- until such time as the liability has been met- because if the two clubs get a ruling in their favour, they surely would be classed as football creditors. Could a transfer embargo while the debt is outstanding also be a useful bit of leverage?

I’m not sure if we are not talking in cross purposes slightly but, I have no idea how long a CCC would take to get through the courts and what point a favorable judgement could be sought to clearly avoid payment to HMRC at any reasonable level in view of the web of deception and double dealing, and out right cheating, by Derby County vis a vis Mel Morris. 
 

Also to what extent would a CCC judgement be allowable under EFL rules and will that effect their golden share. That will have to be tested! 
 

I did say once on the Derby forum once that the corporate veil is pierced once administrators are called in. The administrators have not been particularly open in anything that is going on, simply because they are screwed at every turn and it’s not in their Derby County, Mel Morris or possible bidders interests to really let anyone know the extent of the Shit baggery That’s led the supporters to be pleading with anyone who will listen. 
 

But what we do know is Quantuma are not very good, Derby only have enough money for a month and no one has put forward a bid that covers enough bases to make it viable as of yet. 
 

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by REDOXO

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Despite the restrictions this season, Rooney was still able to pull a very good squad together and I have no doubt he'd do a better job in the upcoming summer.

That is a point many people discussing the football part of this debate, fail to recognise.  He isn’t just playing kids per se like we did in 82, most of those kids are already first teamers of reasonable experience.  He has done a good job though.

[Mr Popodopolous]

25 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That is a point many people discussing the football part of this debate, fail to recognise.  He isn’t just playing kids per se like we did in 82, most of those kids are already first teamers of reasonable experience.  He has done a good job though.

Agreed- not saying he hasn't done well and if he pulls it off, overturning a -21 at our level with a prevailing uncertainty- this would clearly be a notable feat but we consider players such as...

1. Roos and Allsop- before them Marshall but he was out of favour for some reason even prior to administration?
2. Byrne and then at the other end of the age scale, Ebosele. Can he play RB or is he higher up the pitch though?
3. Davies, Jagielka, Stearman is a bit of a Dad's Army and certainly not ideal for a high line but otoh with the right tactics their experience is invaluable.
4. Buchanan and then covering or competing, an experienced Forsyth. Dylan Williams is quite highly thought of IIRC?
5. Knight, Bird, Shinnie, Sibley and of course Bielik- the latter if fit is a very good player and the 3 other remaining players are talented youngsters and more actually. Shinnie struck me as being a competent midfielder, at a reported £30k to Wigan a bit of a steal?
6. Lawrence- the fact that some upper Championship and even some lower to upper middle PL clubs are being linked says all you need to know! He's not had the best of times there but been very good this season or strong in a struggling side end product wise anyway? Jozwiak on the other side is a Poland international with time on his side who cost a few million.
7. Up front perhaps at the thinner end- although Kazim-Richards was injured for many months only to be back within 2! Baldock was there but no longer- but both have/had experience at this level. Young but promising strikers in Plange and Stretton can chip in.

To stay up would be notable- overcoming a -21 definitely is and Rooney after some initial moaning has knuckled down and carried himself well- but it's perhaps not the miracle to end all miracles that some would portray.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Listening to Radio Derby, including varied fans and Kieran Maguire have to say a few of my views I have reconsidered a little.

I demand this and that- and yes they need to exit administration on the EFL's terms but why e.g. the cases could not be heard AFTER takeover I'm unsure. Let takeover happen first but under some binding agreement to negotiate or go via EFL Arbitration.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Might also add, was slightly interested to learn that this isn't the first time that Derby have been in the financial doldrums- I saw something about our own issues 40 years ago and it listed Derby and Darlington among clubs also with financial troubles. In the last generation though- say 35-40 years, it appears to happen 2-3 times a generation there.

Early to mid 1980s, High Court etc. Yet within a few years...

...Then...

Some very notable players in there- but how affordable were they??

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/page/the-history-of-derby-county

Very boom and bust?? 2, 3 times in 40 years!?

[Port Said Red]

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Might also add, was slightly interested to learn that this isn't the first time that Derby have been in the financial doldrums- I saw something about our own issues 40 years ago and it listed Derby and Darlington among clubs also with financial troubles. In the last generation though- say 35-40 years, it appears to happen 2-3 times a generation there.

Early to mid 1980s, High Court etc. Yet within a few years...

...Then...

Some very notable players in there- but how affordable were they??

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/page/the-history-of-derby-county

Very boom and bust?? 2, 3 times in 40 years!?

I have always associated them with being in financial difficulty, a bit like the gas I suppose. 

I seem to remember an article many years ago that said that the origin of their money worries was the old Baseball Ground. As the name suggests it was never designed for football and they constantly spent money trying to get the pitch and drainage right. The stadium itself couldn't really be used to generate income away from football either. It was also positioned badly for expansion and on land that would not be worth much for development.

The new stadium was an absolute must for them, but it looks like Mel Morris has outmanouvered them by taking that into his portfolio.

[lenred]

2 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

I have always associated them with being in financial difficulty, a bit like the gas I suppose. 

I seem to remember an article many years ago that said that the origin of their money worries was the old Baseball Ground. As the name suggests it was never designed for football and they constantly spent money trying to get the pitch and drainage right. The stadium itself couldn't really be used to generate income away from football either. It was also positioned badly for expansion and on land that would not be worth much for development.

The new stadium was an absolute must for them, but it looks like Mel Morris has outmanouvered them by taking that into his portfolio.

With Robert Maxwell as their owner back in the day Id imagine there were plenty of financial ‘going’s on’ during his tenure, given his background! 

[Port Said Red]

1 minute ago, lenred said:

With Robert Maxwell as their owner back in the day Id imagine there were plenty of financial ‘going’s on’ during his tenure, given his background! 

Oh yes. Wasn't he also behind the idea of merging Reading and Oxford into the Thames Valley Royals or some such nonsense too?

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, lenred said:

With Robert Maxwell as their owner back in the day Id imagine there were plenty of financial ‘going’s on’ during his tenure, given his background! 

My dad had dealings with Maxwell (not directly) in the 80s in the printing business.  Maxwell was feared by his employees. Nasty piece of business.