Hxj

It's a delay play only. 64 days and counting down to the start of the January Transfer, 95 days to the end. Currently to be able to sign players in that window DCFC will need to clear all five of the Embargo actions and agree a business plan with the EFL, any single point which drags on will reduce the time for transfers and therefore the value of the club and teh chances of a successful takeover.

They can't. They would have to decide on the validity, which could depend upon the EFL DC. The point I think is more in the PR and the time delay and hassle it could cause, clearly a football creditor of £6 million has a significant impact on the propsals and amounts needed to buy the club.

I have a round one of those in the corner of the office ? But in an Administration spurious claims can get in the way of resolving matters, if the Administrators get it wrong they could be personally liable and on £6 million it could be expensive. It may need to be adjudicated on by an EFL Disciplinary Commission as a dispute between two clubs, that could take a while.

My understanding is that Wycombe sent the Administrators an invoice.

An interesting PR stunt. Always keep Derby's failings and your suffering on the front page.

The EFL can impose a business plan. There is no reason to suppose that that business plan cannot insist that the ground is kept outside what qualifies as the group for FFP purposes, with arm's length transactions between the stadium and the EFL group. Not if the same company continues to trade as the 'Football Company' and meets the ongoing obligations. If the company enters into liquidation then it will loose the share. There is a gap between the rules for companies in Administration and the EFL Regulations. Where a company enters Administration there is no obligation to submit outstanding accounts, but a statement of the financial position at the date of Administration has to be submitted to Companies House. However the FFP rules require submission of audited accounts otherwise the club will remain in Embargo. That is one of the many circles that will need to be squared. Once the company comes out of Administration accounts for subsequent periods will need to be submitted.

Not at all convinced that Kirchner will end up with DCFC, something's not right. There is nothing to indicate that he has real free net worth anywhere near what is required to fund a Championship football club.

It was never designed to create a level playing field, it was designed to reduce the chances of a club going bust. Rugby finances are entirely different to those in football. You also have relatively few top nations and therefore relatively few top leagues, there is relatively low movement between the divisions of each league, and several national teams will only pick from players playing in their national or supra-national league. The relatively 'closed shop' enables owners to regulate their salary exposures accordingly. It's the same in most US sports where Promotion and relegation are generally unheard of. However the cap does not cover costs outside actual players (which FFP seeks to regulate) and also carves out exemptions for significant costs. Oh and the latest Rugby Salary Cap regulations cover 70 odd pages of text.

There's a huge misconception that FFP is complex and huge myths around FFP. It's simple and straightforward. In most seasons cannot lose more than £39 million in the three year period. That is it. QPR Football Club company (excluding the impact of the FFP fine they received in 2018) have made a profit in every year from 2016 to 2020. So FFP is of no real concern to them at all.

But that doesn't stop another one going, all the more silly as www.dcfcfans.co.uk get going again. Some poor lost soul is now complaining to not their MP about the 'appointment' of Risdale (PNE) and Bausor ('Boro) to the EFL Board under the title English Football League Board Grave Concerns of Two Appointments They state that The second concern I have is over the appointment of Neil Bausor to the EFL board, who is currently the CEO of Middlesbrough Football Club. It is widely reported in the media of legal action against Derby County from Middlesbrough Football Club I believe there is a possible conflict of interest in this appointment. Can someone (@AnotherDerbyFan?) point out to them that both were Elected by the Championship clubs to be their representatives on the Board. And can someone from DCFCfans explain how having Bausor on the Board is wrong, but having their very own Pearce was not an actual conflict of interest and perfectly acceptable. Total nonsense.

The Derby County Football Club still needs to be in the EFL for that to happen. I'm still not convinced that the club will be. Looking back on the 2018 accounts the company had net assets of £122 million or thereabouts, we also know that by January 2020 the company couldn't pay HMRC. That's a serious change on fortunes all pre-coronavirus. Approval of the Admininistration proposals is likely to come down to the vote of HMRC. HMRC's published position on voting in Company Voluntary Arrangements, different I know but a similar process, is here. VAS help sheet (publishing.service.gov.uk) The relevant text states: Rejecting a voluntary arrangement We are also likely to reject a voluntary arrangement where ... • any proposal by any member of any organisation that requires debts owed to its members, to be paid in full, whether inside or outside of the arrangement or before or after the completion of the arrangement when all other unsecured creditors will become bound to accept a compromise of their debt. Here ‘members’ includes any prescribed associate(s) or other creditor(s) specified by the organisation The 'Football Creditors' arrangements fall squarely within that bullet point. If HMRC exercise their vote in this way then all debts of the Club will need to be paid to remove it from administration. Is someone really going to pay that amount for the club? So I still see Liquidation of the club as a significant possibility. We will probably have a better understanding of the position in the week commencing 15 November.

Who does it belong to?

My understanding is that he was standing at the front cheering the army on. All lambs to the slaughter in the end.

And of course to add to the fun Notts County play in the City of Nottingham and Notts Forest play in the County of Nottinghamshire.

The actual transactional data is considerably more valuable than the accounts. This is because the accounts can be constructed from the data, but the data cannot be obtained from the accounts. No other EFL clubs (all three divisions) currently have any embargoes for missing accounts or FFP data.

Yes. No. For an appeal Independent Accountants are instructed by the EFL, paid for by DCFC, to review all the financial circumstances of the club. It has been reported that the EFL have asked for DCFC to supply six years of financial data to enable the report to be prepared.

The new FFP Regulation: 1.1.2(b) with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22, profit/loss on disposal of any tangible fixed asset. solves one loop hole but creates another. I would like a 1.1.2(c) which would read: 1.1.2(c) with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22 no adjustment is made under Regulation 1.1.2(a)(i) or (b) where a profit on the the disposal of a fixed asset was included within the FFP calculations for a season before 2021/22, until the amount not so adjusted equals the profit so included.

It is possible - it needs the passing of a Special resolution at the AGM or an EGM. No idea what the number needed is, but it is likely to be at least 75% of all members. It won't happen unless Derby go into Liquidation in which case it will. As I've said previously the 'Press Releases' are written for the audience of the person paying for them, so generally I ignore them.

That will make complying with League One FFP easier! I'm not sure if there is any merit or not. I suspect that it will depend upon the debt to HMRC and the background to the winding up action and the withdrawal of that action, plus the funding pattern from Morris over the years and how that changed. 'Solely' is going to be very difficult to prove given the known previous financial circumstances. That is correct as far as Companies House goes, they will not pursue the accounts, but that doesn't mean that they can't be submitted. However the EFL regulations require it. So it is possible that in order to comply with the EFL regulations and come off the Embargo, accounts will have to be submitted to Companies House. I don't believe that. I suspect it was because submitting accounts would require Morris to either agree that the company was a going concern, and agree (due to the Companies Acts) to fund it for 12 months after the accounts were submitted, or accept that the company wasn't a going concern and face suspension from the EFL. I can't see any reason why the post 2018 accounts were not submitted to Companies House and the EFL with an understanding that the FFP position would be finalised after the decision on the earlier years. ... oh wait .. maybe it was because the £25 million odd amortisation charge in the 2019 accounts would have remained hidden if those accounts were kept secret ...

I was there too - dreadful game - almost 40 years ago - scary!

Clearly there will be a commercial decision about what you do, that don't have to accept any offer, but the Administrators will have to justify themselves more than a benevolent owner would. However if his contract is up in the summer, this is his fifth season at Derby (@AnotherDerbyFan will know more than me) it clearly makes it more likely that he will be sold. Plus do you want a player around who really doesn't want to play for you?

They don't but this a one way only adjustment on this matter, it's 12 points or less than 12 points, so that is overall positive. The FFP points deduction would be more of an issue due to the uncertainty and cummalative effect. We are 80 days and counting to the January transfer window. At which point the squad will be destroyed by offers on the better players that the Administrators will have little option but to accept and in respect of players who want to move on.

There is a lot of nonsense flying around on various boards in relation to this. So - in order to succeed DCFC need to prove that 'the relevant insolvency arose solely from a Force Majeure event'. Prove in this sense means on the balance of probabilities. So it is not sufficient for DCFC to show that they went into Administration because of the shutdown of the league, they need to show that this was the only reason. People also seem outraged that 6 years worth of accounting data has been asked for. Difficult to see how the 'independent accountant's report' as detailed in the regulations can be prepared without it, but it can always be called part of an EFL conspiracy if they so wish. However the biggest problem Derby have is the HMRC debt and the attempted winding up order in Jan 2020 and the subsequent withdrawal of that order, along with the lifting of the moratorium on HMRC winding up actions at the end of September 2021. If the club was in serious financial difficulties in January 2020, what happened to that debt and what does the correspondence with HMRC say. If it says we are not going to wind you up because of Covid but in the ongoing correspondence it says we still want our money and then the later correspondence says we can wind you up in October the appeal is stuffed. iT is a pre-covid debt that still han't been paid. The second problem is Morris. If he was funding the club at say £2 million a month, which he is allowed to do, and then cut that back to £1 million a month then that is not Covid related. So the appeal is stuffed. Oh and to say that the appeal has been brought because the Administrators know all the facts and can prove the position is nonsense. The Administrators have brought the appeal because a club with an appeal against a 12 point deduction is more valuable than a club with a 12 point deduction.

Not letting my local prejudices getting in the way at all - but I can see a perfect match between the City of Derby, League One Derby County Football Club and SportsDirect. ???

Thanks - appreciated. I have reworked the figures based upon the disclosed accounts figures and assuming that they are all 4 year contracts and on a straightline basis. 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Upfront 30.65 21.10 15.00 18.50 Adjustment 0.00 5.56 3.96 2.22 Derby 3.37 5.04 6.54 4.60 Original 9.36 14.03 16.67 17.07 Adjustment -5.99 -8.99 -10.13 -12.47 Cumulative -5.99 -14.98 -25.11 -31.59 My estimates show the extent of the benefit gained by Derby. The Cumulative figures are the amounts by which the losses were possibly reduced in the three year FFP window by the non FRS 102 compliant amortisation adopted by Derby. Those figures may well be a couple of million out either way, but give a good impression. There may well also be adjustments necessary in respect of 'Profits' on sale. However it is clear that the level of advantage is significant.