semblar

20 hours ago, Wiltshire robin said:

Palace fans pretty much have the whole end behind the goal to stand and make some noise and whilst our louder fans are tucked away in a little corner stopping any decent atmosphere from being creative. 

I remember the complaints when we had the Atyeo about the acoustics being terrible, now many complain that they want the Atyeo for its acoustics.

What we need to remember is that the ground is designed in a way that the noise projects. In W2 (I have a pile of kids who come with me) the away fans are louder than the S82 guys - but when I was in W7 a few seasons back it was the other way round. I can still hear both though! Noise generation "up top" is patchy, sometimes it gets going for a while, sometimes it doesn't - but even when it does, I bet you don't realise if you're stood in that far corner from us. I guess the most important thing is if the team can hear the support 

Welcome 

It might be worth you exploring the membership option - it costs £25 but saves you £5 per ticket so if you can make more than 5 matches in the season you should be better off

link to city membership page

Not sure they will - it looks like large parts are already sold out (all of the south stand for example)

12 hours ago, glastored said:

Just wondering…..if a player comes on in a pre-season game, does that count as an official debut ?

Probably in my view, after all they have "competitive debut" and "league debut" to look forward to still 

5 minutes ago, The Bard said:

One of the houses on Ashton Road was on the market recently for upwards of £600k.  I think there are 18 such houses behind the Atyeo. There's no chance Steve Lansdown would fork out that plus the obvious cost of building  to expand capacity to at most 35000.

There's scope to add maybe 1500 to 2000 to capacity by knocking down the Atyeo, and wrapping around, but that would cost probably £15 million+.

I would imagine the purchase prices would skyrocket if a serious plan to do this became known about - imagine what the last one could hold out for...

Not Derby related btu when clicking on the EFL statement linked, it was very nice to see a picture of Alex Scott as part of the tile linking to the U19 final

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Seeing the EFL are "furious" in a couple of articles. Times article and follow-up referred to this and now Percy...patience must be wearing a bit thin by now, there are 71 other clubs to consider and their interests to uphold too.

While I mostly do agree, would Ashley's offer have been the best deal for the creditors- Quantuma IIRC are legally bound by this.

Absolutely - and they are also bound to find the best possible deal for the creditors, even if that is liquidation above the MA offer

Quote

What Is The Key Duty Of An Administrator?

The key duty of an Administrator is to act in the best interest of creditors as a whole.

That means that an Administrator’s duty is not to act in the best interest of individual creditors if their position does not match the creditors as a whole.

General Duties Of An Administrator

In general, an Administrator has the following duties:

• to act fairly and honourably
• to manage the company’s affairs as set out in the Administrator’s Proposals document
• to act quickly and efficiently
• to act with reasonable care and skill of an ordinary skilled and careful insolvency practitioner
• to take reasonable care to obtain the best price obtainable for the company assets
• to act with purpose and adhere to relevant considerations when performing functions
• to act with consideration and loyalty to company creditors

nothing explicit in that about protecting the heritage of the club, much as many would think it should be in there somewhere.. possibly something in "relevant considerations"?

56 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Da Roverzzz got the “Best Away Fans” award for the 238th year running ... 

Corrected for Gaslogic accuracy for you 

2 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

I agree with you about higher or lower, and that doesn't bother me too much as it is obviously for the kids. It would be funny though, just for once, to see a contestant with a bit of nous about them trying to deliberately lose.

"...and it's a 1 - higher or lower?"

"Lower!"

Just once, it would be good to see somebody lose higher or lower (not for the kiddie involved of course but I would happily pay for the same prize for him/her just to see it). As others have said, I'm far from the target audience, but the four youngsters I bring with me love it all

Thankfully none of the issues renewing online that a few others seem to have had - five renewed

Just like consulting with a trade union tells you that the workers are underpaid? I'm certainly not saying that they shouldn't have consulted with the SC&T, because I think they should - but we would all have known that the likely response would have been a request for a price freeze

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

No 158, should’ve got a 42 point deduction.

Perhaps they should add Bon Jovi to the list then, as they are halfway there (with 21 points lost) and living on a prayer...

9 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Derby get none of the fee due to not paying the installments to his previous club,

All this has done is get his wages off the wage bill, nothing more

True but it does two things

Reduce cashflow - help the "funds to get to end of season" criteria

Reduce total debt - reduces the minimum sale price needed to meet the various restrictions (such as minimum 25%), especially since the debt wopuld have been a football creditor

Sorry but the first mis-naming that springs to mind is Duncan Idaho, but then I grew up enjoying the Dune books (along with very many others)

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Perhaps. I would argue that it isn't the same though. The money going from MM to Boro is to induce Boro to drop their claim against DCFC. If it is described as comp for previous loss of earnings then MM is implying his own guilt/culpability for that loss of earning. He won't do that, or at least shouldn't. Therefore I'd expect (although we will never know for sure) that the legal documentation surrounding the payment from MM to Boro will not frame the money as being for loss of earnings, but will relate it purely to the dropping of the claim.

So to my mind if Boro then try and stick it into the P&S income column they are using the money for the wrong purpose.

I'm so far into the ocean of conjecture, speculation, and personal opinion that I could be wildly wrong, and the opposite arguments are completely valid, but this is kind of how I would frame it were I MM's lawyer.

But I'm actually less worried about the 'Boro side of things.

Say they have settled on (for example) £1m to be paid by MM to 'Boro. All paid, all settled, the claim goes away. But what if Derby survive (perfectly possible) and their accounts for this year have a £12.9m loss? If Derby had agreed the £1m and paid it, their loss would have been £13.9m and therefore breached their reset P&S limits

11 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

In practice that's probably what's happened but to push the point who else needs to agree/assure what are private arrangements between two member clubs? At minimum one assumes the EFL would have a governance role to ensure an agreement wouldn't compromise their rules or other members interests? It also questions why the detail couldn't be shared with the consideration being kept confidential?

I suppose that is my problem - it potentially opens so many loopholes where what is effectively a brown paper envelope can be passed from a private individual to a club and the "official" transaction between two clubs looks far better in terms of FFP than it would have if everything went through the books. I hope that those more knowledgeable than me on such matters can explain why not?

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Two more lines.

In the event of liquidation, at least according to Nixon a couple of weeks back the EFL have suggested that they could start at League Two level- which would raise a lot of questions about preferential treatment.

I'd be intrigued to know how many of the other 71 clubs would approve of this.

Secondly saw this elsewhere, what do we make of this?

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13892993/filing-history

All in the name of Peter Wallis - sorry but I can't remember if he is a person we "know about" in relation to DCFC...

30 minutes ago, HitchinRed said:

I’ll try one more time…

I know how administration works.

I know that unsecured creditors are bottom of the list.

Under Insolvency Laws, Football Creditors are no different from Non Football creditors.

IMO, I do not think it’s fair that the internal rules of a closed shop league should be able to prioritise the interests of their members over other creditors, who in the eyes of the law are of equal standing.

 

I think the closest equivalent is something like this.

You declare bankruptcy. First goes the stuff on the mortgage (secured creditors) then the rest get a % under insolvency laws.  The EFL is the golf club or the gym that you owe a few hundred to, who then say "if you don't clear our whole bill you can't come and use our facilities..."

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I just plucked a year at random, hadn’t done the maths….I chose a leap year, I.e. his birthday is every 4 years!

I remember somebody at work choosing his 16th birthday to retire after just over 30 years service...

Isn't there something in EFL rules about using arbitration as a condition of membership?

1 hour ago, Top Robin said:

Time for VAR across all divisions......I'll wait for the abuse but its right more often than wrong

Much as I hate to say it (not least because of the breaking up of play)- but I would be just about in favour overall of properly-implemented VAR in the Championship. By "properly-implemented" I would include some form of "referee's call" to try to avoid the "toe offside" style decision.

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Just watching the Urgent Question bit and the guy who is answering the questions- is he the Sports Minister- made a very unusual claim.

Said the Treasury were an Unsecured Creditor- pretty sure they are now Preferential and Secondary Preferential, at least for certain categories of debt!?

21:00-22:00.

A lie or an error?

"Unsecured" is correct but not complete. - you then subdivide the unsecured creditors into the other categories. You are only a secured creditor if you hold a charge over assets or the company as a whole. They are top of the queue, followed by the administrators (first preferential - but still unsecured technically), HMRC (second preferential) then legally all the rest, but EFL rules split into football and non-football

A slightly different take I saw on @Davefevs salary cap quote was to allow the PPs to continue for cashflow purposes - but to only allow some of it to count as income for FFP/P&S purposes, enough only to cover pre-existing wages above the specified divisional average

Decent wage - absolutely. Obscene wage.... no way