AnotherDerbyFan
-
Posts
175 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Events
Posts posted by AnotherDerbyFan
-
-
4 hours ago, REDOXO said:
An area MP making a few things clear
1 Derby has massive debts
2 The possible Wycombe/Middlesbrough proportion of the final total amount of debt is not that big
3 The EFL are not in a position to proceed with their duty until there is a preferred bidder which there is not
4 Mel Morris and the ground ownership is an issue
It has been mentioned that three bidders have met the asking price by Derby supporters, this is clearly not the case as the combined debt is the asking price plus how that plays into stadium ownership.
It seems there have been three bids, to the best of my knowledge of between 25 and 30m. As this is just the extent of the HMRC debt an arrangement will have to have been made to clear the total debt. Just forgiving 20 m in tax debt at HMRC is really not an option.
MM taking a personal substantial hit is pretty much the only thing that can save the club at this point..I simply cannot see anyone buying the name of Derby County for bucket loads of money and then being in hock to a stadium owner who is viewed by the EFL at least as DODGY!
As has been stated many times... non of the interested parties will commit without knowing the full cost (they need to know what Boro and Wycombe will be owed, if anything). No PB can be announced until those claims are dealt with.
The debt owed may be £60m+, but only c£28m needs to be repaid (plus MFC/WWFC). Agreement is in place with HMRC for 25% pending the result of MFC/WWFC arbitration.
MM has said he will "not seek any recovery from the sale of the stadium". Debts owed to him will be written off.
Whether you want to believe it or not, the two claims ARE what's blocking Derby from coming out of administration.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
I suppose there is the argument that a firesale wouldn't generate much for the creditors either.
When one compares it to Bury however, Derby are getting a fair bit of leeway?
The difference between Derby and Bury is the number of people who have made their voices heard. Without the political pressure I'm certain the EFL would have been stricter in their approach.
10 minutes ago, Hxj said:The impression given is that no one actually wants to bid enough to ensure that the club remains within the EFL at all, even taking the stadium out of the equation, let alone remaining with a 15 point penalty next season.
Given any post-Administration business plan and/or embargo imposed it will be really difficult to keep your senior squad together next season. particularly with the large number out of contract in the summer. From my perspective it is beginning to look like a short sharp death now or a long lingering one over the next couple of seasons. There are 10 or so ex-Premier League clubs in division 1 or below. Its not an easy place to get out of.
Bidder 1 - Asking price met, doesn't want to purchase the stadium, may or may not be willing to deal with the two claims
Bidder 2 - Asking price met including stadium, but MFC/WWFC claims need to be dealt with first
Bidder 3 - Mel and the Admins have to knock a bit off what they're asking
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, a PB will be announced with them putting in enough to avoid the 15 point deduction.I don't follow your line of thinking regarding the business plan making it difficult to keep the squad together. Other than Byrne, Bielik, Lawrence and Jozwiak, there aren't many who're on high wages even for L1 level. I can't see the busines plan preventing us from keeping most of them. It's well known that most will be signing new deals as soon as the restrictions are lifted. If we manage to stay up, Lawrence will likely be staying too.
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. -
10 minutes ago, sephjnr said:
More to the point, who's in the position to sue the admins if it's seen that they're deliberately not taking money in to give to creditors? The club itself (thus, MM)? the HMRC?
There is a common confusion that administration means a club MUST sell as many players as possible to cover the debt.
The role of administrators is to give as much money as possible to the creditors. As things stand, there are 3 bidders willing to take over (however, all with different conditions). As long as there are bidders willing to take over, the creditors will get more money by NOT selling all of the players.
To get to a position where someone can be named PB, one of two things has to happen.
- Mel covers some of the MSD loan
- MFC/WWFC claims are dismissed/cancelled
-
21 minutes ago, billywedlock said:
And isn’t that just the wrong priorities. If HMRC let this go it will be a free for all due to the precedent . They always said they would never do it and Rangers know about that .
Far better letting you fold , as someone will then resurrect Derby from non league .
Priorities set by law
As I previously said, HMRC will make judgments on a case by case basis, so that they receive as much as they possibly can.
19 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:Perhaps, but long term possibly that's worth it to the taxpayer.
I think in this case HMRC should call the administrators bluff.
There is no bluff. Selling every registered player isn't going to raise the £37m needed to exceed the offer on the table. There are no assets to sell other than players and a few bits of silverware.
-
2 minutes ago, chinapig said:
The Guardian is now suggesting HMRC may accept significantly less than they are owed.
Hell of a precedent. Perhaps all clubs could now withhold tax payments on the grounds that they can't afford to pay?
Because these decisions are made on a case by case basis. They know this is the maximum they can get. An insistence on more results in the club folding and HMRC getting even less due to the structure of the debt and the assets at the club.
Only 6 first team players contracted beyond the summer. With compensation for other youngsters, we'd be lucky to pay back MSD and the administrators, never mind having enough left over to go to HMRC.
-
1 hour ago, chinapig said:
Can you expand on what the positive progress is?
Administrators have received at least 1 official bid which meets the requirements set by the EFL.
Previous offers on the table were conditional upon the Boro/Wycombe claims being ignored.-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Jerseybean said:
Derby get rid of a fourth player this month….https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-chelsea-williams-transfer-6537945
5th
6 minutes ago, Hxj said:And a fifth: Confirmed: Derby County announce midfielder transfer - Derbyshire Live (derbytelegraph.co.uk) - Although I would count that as a 'Britton' type deal
Plus meetings with EFL called off due to positive progress.
6th
Marshall, Baldock, Jagielka and Shinnie are the others.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, BTRFTG said:
I see Dylan Williams is reported to have been sold for decent money despite having played few first team matches
I wonder if that's to do with him being on a second year scholar's contract out of the Academy such if they go bust he immediately goes on a free?
Decent money isn't £500k.
Stuck on a scholarship contract as a professional contract would have meant he was unavailable for the first team. Crazy rules. It basically left the club with the choice of accepting an offer now or letting it go to tribunal.
That takes us to 6 youngsters who have left to join Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea over the past 3 seasons for a combined £3m.
-
3 hours ago, Monkeh said:
It's just a puff piece,
The Middlesborough thing keeps being brought up as if it's come about last minute,
But it's been ongoing since 18/19 and Derby keep kicking the can down the road and now crying foul about it,
If it had been dealt with like if Derby accepted their punishment last season and took their 5 point deduction instead of appealing 4 or 5 times
None of this will be happening,
It's a situation of Derby's own making and I have little sympathy for them, only for the fans
The Boro claim in 2019 was only with regards to the Stadium.
April 2019 - MFC queried, “in forceful terms”, the legitimacy of such a sale and leaseback arrangement
May 2019 – MFC submitted a claim against Derby, stating we cheated P&S by selling the stadium for too much and it wasn’t arms length.
July 2019 – MFC claim PPS should have been sold at a fair value of £22.8m
July 19 – MFC officially threatened the EFL and DCFC with proceedings unless the EFL initiated disciplinary action against DCFC
September 2019 – MFC served notice of arbitration to get profits from stadium sales excluded from P&S calculations
Spetember 2020 – Boro started an arbitration against Derby and the EFL, in particular regarding the stadium valuation which allowed Derby to sign WaghornIt wasn't until the decision following the LAP verdict (July 2021) came out that they decided to come after us for amortisation instead.
-
21 hours ago, Davefevs said:
I’m really torn between wanting Derby to be saved (for the sake of staff and their good fans) and them to go bust as it will show a big club can go under…and hopefully lead to positive reform. Bury weren’t big enough unfortunately to trigger the right changes.
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.
-
2 hours ago, 1960maaan said:
Those claims are interesting.
Derby cheated and cost M'boro a playoff place, potentially £m's. They Cheated and prevented Wycombe a chance of staying up, potentially £m's.
With that hanging over the Club, you can understand a but of hesitance on the new , or potential owners , to go ahead. You can see why Administrators say the case has no merit, trying to get the deal done. What would happen if the Deal went through , and the case went M'boro & Wycombe's way. Would the New Co have any comeback with the Admin, would it count as being mislead in the deal, and could they seek redress?
Seems some very dodgy ground.
Bristol City have as good, if not better claim than Boro, considering we beat in you in the run in, pretty much ending your Playoff hopes. If you won that game, you would have finished 6th.
-
1
-
-
On 16/01/2022 at 20:15, Shaun Taylor said:
He's done a good job so far and was wondering who is backroom staff are
Liam Rosenior - Assistant
Justin Walker - Coach, managed the U18s as we won the league in 18/19 league. FYI, that team contained McDonald, Cashin, Buchanan, Knight, Bird, Sibley, Thompson, Ebosele and Stretton who are all now in the first team squad. Also Delap who played a handful of games.
Jason Pearcey - GK coach (promoted from academy)
Luke Jenkinson - Fitness coach
Then physios-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, Hxj said:
Looks like your calculator is the one that Morris and Pearce used!
oh dear...
*delete* *delete* *delete*
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Davefevs said:
Ta.
Ah, I recall this now….that is the formula for working out the overall “threshold”. However am I right in thinking the actual amount of losses is still what is submitted, but the 19/20 and 20/21 years are aggregated and halved?
So a club with a PL season will be 35,13,13,13 = 74 / 4 * 3 = 55.5 allowance
But in terms of inside or outside the allowance.
£10m loss in 18/19
£20m loss in 19/20
£30m loss in 20/21
£30m loss in 21/22
would not be £90m / 4 * 3 = £67.5m
but £10m + (£50m/2) + £30m = £65m?
Surely not?
4 seasons in the Championship would be 13,13,13,13 = 52/4*3 = £9.75m
-
13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
Interesting post on the Preston forum.
A suggestion that at least two more clubs are close to deductions- one above and one below Preston.
Will try to post the posts later but if it's 2, then I would suggest Stoke would be a decent candidate.
Stoke and Blackburn would have been where my money went - but both are above Preston
-
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
I have to say, looking back now my views ebbed and flowed over the time period. I was genuinely outraged by the P&S issues, the denial and had a horrible nagging fluctuating fear that Derby woud get off the hook one way or another, which crystalised my views.
The denial, the obfusucation- and yes in the case of a reasonable chunk of fans, the on strings stuff I saw as quite objectionable. I won't write an essay on my views, there have been nearly 2 years of this haha!
I was also amazed that fans or a lot of them a) Seemed not to grasp or chose to disregard that just because cleared in IDC1 to 2018, was by no means the end of it and b) A few talking of signing Adam Armstrong in Summer 2021. Crazy given an FFP crunch even if only budgetary was coming one way or another. Takeovers don't reset it either.
Perhaps I have been a bit unfair at times but some of the flak on DCFCFans inevitably hardened my position at times.
Oh yes, some of the club statements throughout the piece look a bit hollow now. They grated somewhat as well.
The £30m Revaluation Reserve...did you think there was a realistic chance of inclusion? Apologies if already covered. I had significant doubts let's say.
Every club has a section of fans like that - they have no concept of what is affordable. I'm sure I could dig up a thread on this forum wondering why you aren't splashing the cash on £10m signings
I hoped it would be included, but always excluded it from my calcs for the very reason of it being extremely unlikely to count.
1 hour ago, Davefevs said:Dunno, was just plotting your figures!
What are “resets”?
If a club fails one period, annual losses exceeding £13m would be 'reset' to £13m to calculate P&S losses for future periods.
So for the 3 years to 2018, the calculation would be £13m + £13m + £0.6m = totalling £26m losses, rather than £42.6m if using the actual figures.
-
4 hours ago, Davefevs said:
What are your thoughts on resets?
Either they're reset and I've overestimated the drop in wage bill and/or change in revenue, or... they don't reset and I've underestimated wage bill and/or revenue increase. -
30 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:
There were plenty of occasions when I very much doubted you hoped that
The figures appear to reset based on my old calcs, although I am missing about £16m of losses - dependant on what P&S profit/loss was for 2020
To 20/21 should include 17/18 and not 21/22
To 21/22 should include 18/19 and not 22/23My estimates:
14//15 -£5.6m
15/16 -£22.1m
16/17 -£19.9m
17/18 -£0.6m
18/19 -£29.2m
19/20 -£30.1m
20/21 -£12.3m
21/22 -£11.5m£8m underestimate for 2019
£6m underestimate for 2021Estimate for 2022 is losses of £45.7m - just under £6m over the limit (let's hope my figures start to balance out
)
I lie. Forgot about the reset values for the 2022 period.
Correction: Estimate for 2022 is losses of £37.2m - just inside the P&S limit (assuming £13m rather than £5m per season)
-
19 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
They'll survive off the pitch, never much doubt. Hope they do too.
There were plenty of occasions when I very much doubted you hoped that
16 hours ago, Hxj said:Yep - about every angle covered off that has been raised on here - almost as if the EFL read this thread!
More than likely in my view.
2020/21 was the sum of 2017/18, 2018/19, plus the average of 2019/20 and 2020/21.
2021/22 will be the sum of 2018/19, the average of 2019/20 and 2020/21, plus 2021/22.
2020/21 was a breach by £2 million and 2017/18 was a guess £20 million profit for FFP. Consequently 2021/22 will need to be a £22 million profit to avoid another FFP failure. The principle of 'Loss Reset' does not seem to apply.
The figures appear to reset based on my old calcs, although I am missing about £16m of losses - dependant on what P&S profit/loss was for 2020
16 hours ago, Davefevs said:Would be good to know the figs that go in each box
To 20/21 should include 17/18 and not 21/22
To 21/22 should include 18/19 and not 22/23My estimates:
14//15 -£5.6m
15/16 -£22.1m
16/17 -£19.9m
17/18 -£0.6m
18/19 -£29.2m
19/20 -£30.1m
20/21 -£12.3m
21/22 -£11.5m£8m underestimate for 2019
£6m underestimate for 2021Estimate for 2022 is losses of £45.7m - just under £6m over the limit (let's hope my figures start to balance out
)
-
1
-
2
-
-
25 minutes ago, Hxj said:
mmmm - so when were the revised accounts to 2018 and the final accounts for 2019 onwards submitted to the EFL along with the FFP paperwork? Without that you can't have a charge on failng FFP and therefore no hearing.
In adition we are now at a stage where any decision from a Disciplinary Commission on the FFP failure is unlikey to be resolved by the end of January, so no lifting of any embargo in time for the January transfer window, with all those consequences, and any appeal may not be finalised until after the March deadline which potentially puts the 2022/23 season in jeopardy as well.
All in all I can see huge advantages to get the EFL issues dealt with and clear the decks to deal with the real issue which is the threat of liquidation.
That's the problem though. Both sides can't (or at least couldn't) agree on what is(was) acceptable, so accounts wouldn't be officially submitted as a result. It just seems like there needs to be an independent panel to make that call.
Thoughts on this little snippet from the LAP judgment? It seems to have been skipped over by everyone up until now.
-
9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:
Ah yeah I remember. Read it a bit more closely in that timespan.
A pot of money- cash allocated by Mel to the club to get through and some of it had to be front-loaded, hence going into administration now.
I think all 3 of the scenarios probably have some truth to it- and point 3 is very important for the future as you rightly say. On that note, I am a bit surprised at the administrators changing tack and back agan- unless it was part of the plan.
Initially IIRC they spoke of wanting to take it all in one fell swoop, one hit- sensible approach to get on with the serious business of saving the club off the pitch and providing a level of clarity for prospective new buyers, as a good way to tidy up a range of issues too. Seemed surprising then that a) They decided to appeal the -12 which has taken a good- 3 weeks, month out of this time. Quite possibly for no purpose- and minus 9 and a further suspended 3, they were never going to move on that the EFL IMO- and had leverage such as keeping embargoes in play, putting stringent conditions on despite change of control etc so I'm unsure quite what the idea was there- any ideas? Although should be pointed out that none of this is ratified, finalised.
It's the back tracking on the appeal that frustrates me. Days to go until the hearing and not much longer until a verdict would have been announced... it just seems really odd.
I can understand the P&S penalty being accepted just to speed things up. No takeover was going to happen until that was resolved so it was either accept it (whether we believed we were right or wrong) or let things drag on, This is where I would critisise the EFL for not cooperating enough to expedite a fair trial (given no side was willing to budge from their stance)9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:On a side note, what's your take on Reading's overspend? It's big but I keep reading £30-60m, and that just doesn't seem that high to me- I've thought 8 figures but unsure about such a large overspend to date. What do you make it if you've looked at it lately? For reference I use the club in 2017/18 and Renhe Sports Management in each of the last 2 seasons.
I can't remember which accounts I based it off, but I had Reading down as a £32m overspend in the 3 years to 2020, then similar again for the 4 years to 2021.
I want to see consistency in penalty between Derby and Reading. Not something like the suspended 3 points for paying 1 months wages late, then SWFC get the same for several months wages. -
On 08/11/2021 at 14:10, Mr Popodopolous said:
Couple of general thoughts and observations.
Probably missing something here but surely now that Covid business conditions have passed, officially speaking anyway, given all of the cost cutting the club should have been self-sufficient for a period after Mel stopped funding this season if the appeal is to have legs? The cash balance should have been adequate for a while anyway.
HMRC wise. I dunno, but just have a feeling that they would rather accept a % of something rather than 100% of nothing in the event of liquidation?
Even though 100% of nothing would set an example in particular to football clubs who are considering it. The moral of the story being:
"Football or not, we've taken up to a £28m hit here and this shows that yes we are willing if required to wind up clubs over tax issues".
I touched on this a month ago (see next quote). We essentially had a pot of money, which had to get us through from March 2020 to a point of self-sustainability. Covid smashed though that pot meaning admin before we could be self-sustainable.
Given all evidence points to wards the admin appeal being withdrawn I see 3 likely scenarios:
- we were never actually projected to be self-sustainable- being run at breakeven or a profit was reliant on regular player sales
- the claim was we would have been bought by someone in the 18 months between March 2020 and administration.
- the potential new owner thinks it's best to get it all out of the way asap, regardless of the the likely outcomes, just to have a clear picture of the future.
On 15/10/2021 at 11:58, AnotherDerbyFan said:That's not quite right. It's not about 'financial difficulty', but whether in balance of probabilities, we entered administration solely because of Covid.
There are many ways that statement can be interpreted.
In the basic sense, if we had the £20m cash we missed out on as a result of Covid, would we avoid admin completely?
A little example here of how much money if left in Mel's piggy bank. Let's say he had £30m at the start of 2020 (before lockdown). The plan being to slowly reduce his input so that the club will run at an organic profit. By the end of the 21/22 season, that goal was set to be achieved, and no more money ever needs to be taken from his piggy bank.
However, Covid struck which ruined those plans. Sales made in the summer to get some cash in and others let go to cut the wage bill. Fans still not allowed in so further sales and cutbacks necessary in the Jan window. But still, not money left by Autumn 2021.
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Hxj said:
I suspect that Mel got cold feet in 2019, thought he had sold the business and therefore stopped funding.
This is also why later accounts were not submitted as the owner would need to agree to fund teh club for another year to be able an auditor to sign off on a going concern basis. It would have been easy to agree with EFL that the accounts will be submitted and the FFP submissions revised following the outcome of the Tribunal.
If the 2020 tax is still outstanding and HMRC were threatening to restart winding up proceedings 'Solely' is looking dodgy.
Whilst you are here @AnotherDerbyFan what's your view on HMRC negotiating on the tax debt given their published view and their actions in voting against the acceptance of the proposals and subsequent court actions in Glasgow Rangers and Portsmouth?
I stand by the view that the accounts hadn't been submitted due to the ongoing amortisation case. The outcome of the amortisation appeal was to submit accounts in line with FRS102. The club and the EFL still couldn't agree on if the new accounts were compliant or not.
If there was a plan which took account of the HMRC tax, then I don't think that would be a problem.
It's up to HMRC as to whether they negotiate or not. If the do, then I expect tighter restrictions on the club than if it's paid in full. I would find it immoral to negotiate a few £m off the tax bill and then go out to spend money in January or the summer.
9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:Is it just two options? Is there no chance you’d have gone into administration at some point….or do you mean at this particular juncture?
I assumed that there was enough money to get through to a point of self-sustainability, otherwise the appeal is pointless.
-
2
-
Derby County
in Football Chat
Posted
Just out of interest, how much of their debts did these current Championship clubs pay to exit administration?
Middlesbrough
Millwall
Bournemouth (twice)
QPR
Barnsley
Luton
Coventry
What about these non-Championship clubs?
Charlton
Palace (twice)
Portsmouth (thrice)
Leicester
Ipswich
Leeds
Southampton
Bolton
Wigan
I completely agree. If the rule exists then no exceptions should be made.