BTRFTG

As if you needed another reason not to watch the World Cup.

The beauty of football was it's Laws were the same for all, top flight pros, kids in the park. You used the same equipment. 

4 hours ago, The Bard said:

Almost as if they invest in their infrastructure rather than sell the profitable bits off to private, foreign concerns and let it rot..

 

In the case of UK railways the infrastructure is, er, wholly state owned. 

From a passenger perspective it's also pointless talking about a 'national' network when over two thirds of all train journeys start or end in London and nearly 70% of passenger miles occur in the London & South East regions.

And to those who relate how wonderful the operation of Europe's electrical railways forget not their design, instigation and implementation were almost single-handedly at the hands of the British. The fact the British themselves were the last to introduce such technology, decades after everybody else, had everything to do with trade unionism, the impact of post war nationalisation on rail operators and Harold Wilson's obsession with expanding the national road network.

Japan, (mountains, variable weather, earthquakes and all ) is commonly lauded as having the finest rail network operating. I myself wondered at it's efficiency when travelling there. Japan Railways is mostly privately owned and in regions where the state retains a measure of ownership that's via an arm's length, autonomous private agency model.

Britain's railway problems aren't economic per se, they're historic & geographic, much as using Jimmy Saville to promote rail usage hasn't aged well......

One for the future....until he wasn't.....

7 hours ago, Never to the dark side said:

For turn up on the day fares with no rail discount cards split tickets or under 16's

sunderland 178.30p

middlesbrough 165.00p

hull 142.60p

norwich 136.50p

burnley 120.00p

blackpool 120.10

huddersfield 115.20p

sheffield 111.60p

rotherham 111,60p

blackburn 111.80p

preston 107.00p

wigan 101.00p

 

Is that from Parson St?

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Seems to include some kind of debt write off of £59m for the balance? Not looked properly for a while but Kieran Maguire suggested it.

On the plus side Couhig hasn't gone away- good.

Think he's a bit kind to the Derby fans tbh- of them, although easy to say, if he read DCFCFans he might form a different view about a good chunk.

On a serious note, I don't see too much wrong in what he said here? 

Just an accounting write off for Morris. In truth it's no write off at all.

Think of something you've bought. Tell the world it's now worth 10 times as much. Sell it for purchase price. Huge write down your side but your actual loss? 

1 hour ago, East Londoner said:

Although it’s only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it at the end of the day 

Exactly, but why in the last few months would an asset lose 75% of its supposed value? Derby should be made to demonstrate a valid reason for the depreciation, given they went to such lengths to argue it was worth £81m to bolster their FFP/ P&S position when all knew that was cock and bull.

If EFL had any they'd take a big stick to Derby who having argued in court that Pride Park was 'worth' £81m has just seen it sold for £22m.

16 hours ago, chinapig said:

My guess is Clowes bought the stadium on the basis of Quantuma's assurance that Kirchner's deal for the club would go through. Clowes could then collect the rent. I don't think Clowes was interested in buying the club at that stage.

Quite why anybody would be convinced by either Quantuma or Kirchner is a mystery we may never get the answer to.

Or..... if the deal for the club doesn't go through what better a Derby fan crying crocodile tears bemoaning he tried his best to save his beloved club but where's he now going to find a property developer to take Pride Park off his hands?

(Looks in the mirror .....)

.....lives in Southville.... Seriously?

16 hours ago, Sweeneys Penalties said:

Salford has a bigger population than Wakefield

From all those Manure fans spouting off you'd think it might but as they actually live in Torquay & Tunbridge Wells , not Salford, it doesn't.

7 hours ago, Mad Cyril said:

Plymouth - the biggest city in England never to have had a football team play in the top flight.

Even we can't out-moan that one.

Wakefield is bigger I believe and they've never had a football team in the league.

Derby fans will be heartened to learn of Clowes 'Principle Activity & Business Model' from the Holding Group's strategic report: 

"The group’s principal activities are the acquisition of land, buildings 
and property to achieve development sales. Properties are rented out 
whilst the group seeks appropriate opportunities and permissions to 
develop individual properties on the sites on which they are located. 
The group always considers reasonable offers for all of its properties, 
but has the financial strength that it will never be a forced seller. If the 
group considers there is substantial long-term value in a property, 
it will retain the asset until the right opportunity to sell or re-develop 
the property arises and can afford to carry all assets indefinitely"

What might possibly go wrong?

3 hours ago, Hxj said:

No further penalty.  Just get thrown out of the league if in Administration for 18 months.

Further sanctions will arise if:

1. Exit Administration with unpaid football creditors - expulsion

2. Exit Administration and unsecured creditors paid less than 25%, or less than 35% over three years - minus 15 points

3. Fail to pay wages before 30 June 2023 - 3 point penalty plus any other appropriate penalty for offence

4. Fail to meet FFP for years to 2022 - Who knows

And then there's the one the EFL seem to make up as they go.

The EFL supposedly retain sanctions against clubs who exit administration but in having done so have gained an advantage over their peers where secured debt is not repaid in full. It's said this is usually in the form of further transfer embargoes but I don't think there's a hard and fast rule as to how these are calculated. Suppose the New Derby emerge having done (by agreement) HMRC out of £20m. Is there a time Vs cost calculation as to how this isn't 'repaid' (sic)? There couldn't be a blanket embargo as Derby wouldn't have a playing squad with which to continue, so what might be the punishment?

Seems to me the EFL are as duplicitous as some of their members. For example, in response to Derby fans questioning why Derby were denied access to emergency Covid loans the EFL correctly responded they weren't, Derby didn't apply for them. Of course what the EFL didn't widely publicise was for Derby to have applied for the new loans they'd have to have consolidated all existing football related loans AND demonstrated they had means to repay the consolidated loans, which Derby clearly weren't in a position to do. 

18 hours ago, B-Rizzle said:

To be fair, the ‘sick note’ reputation was reasonable based on his record but I think the rumours about Baker’s medical situation in recent months has added context to his many early withdrawals in matches which has enabled fans to understand this a bit more.

Think it’s fair to say we’re all now united with respect and best wishes for NB and I echo the sentiments of previous posts.

 

I, too, was one of those often commenting how puzzling it was that NB stopped so abruptly in matches, usually an apparent minor leg niggle (sic) whilst invariably managing to walk off unaided and available for selection next fixture. That was until I was told something back last year that shed light on his 'minor niggles' and placed everything in context.

Best wait for NB to say what he wishes, if anything that is. Good player who owes us nothing and his own health, wife and family everything.

On 14/06/2022 at 11:20, ExiledAjax said:

Ok, I'm not going to argue about what you originally said. The post of yours that I originally quoted is still posted a few pages back, so we can all go and read it if we want to.

But, again you've used the word "believe" several times when describing what Derby County Football Club Limited (in administration) or their Joint Administrators can currently do, or can currently benefit from. You say this in relation to the status of Derby County Football Club Limited (in administration) as a Member Club of The English Football League Ltd.

As an example, you say that you don't think Derby currently has the right to vote as an EFL Member Club. OK, let's test that. Firstly, nowhere in the articles of association of The English Football League Ltd or the EFL Regulations does it say that a Club automatically loses this right upon entering administration. In fact the articles (in particular 10.10, 11.5, 12) suggest, although voting rights are not expressly addressed, that any club that is a Member Club (ie any entity that holds a share from time to time) is entitled to vote. From my reading it looks like the only way this right to vote could possibly have been removed is if it was one of the conditions to suspension contained within the Notice of Withdrawal. Now we haven't seen that document, so we cannot be sure of the exact conditions contained within it.

However, if the right to vote was purported to be removed from Derby under the Notice of Withdrawal then that would amount to an amendment of the rights attaching to a share. As all shares of the same class must have the same rights (otherwise you're deemed to have created a new class of share), then (in the absence of anything in the articles) doing this should require a special resolution of the other shareholders of that class of share (ie 75% of the 71 other clubs) to alter those share rights. We'd also see a filing on Companies House to that effect. No such filing is shown on the Companies House webpage for The English Football League Ltd, and so we can assume this has not happened. Therefore we should assume that Derby are still able to vote as a Member Club.

You are correct that no Derby representative can stand for election to the Board of the EFL. That's in the articles (article 20.1.14). They also cannot put forward anyone to be an EFL rep on the FA's board (article 24.6.12).

Of course the Joint Administrators don't take beneficial ownership of the shares of the company they administer. Is that relevant to Derby County Football Club Limited (in administration)'s membership of the EFL? Membership is determined by ownership of a share - ie ownership of legal title, not beneficial ownership. I agree that the statement yesterday and the EFL stepping in as they are suggests that the EFL do not believe the administrators are acting as they should...but that statement and actions doesn't in anyway suggest that Derby are no longer a Member Club.

Yes. That is exactly what article (not regulation) 4.8 says. There is no problem with them doing that at all because it's in the rules - rules that apply to Derby because they are a member of the EFL.

I'm not trying to point score or argue, and I do agree with some aspects of what you say, there are some things that Derby (or its admins and directors etc) cannot do because they are in admin. However, this conversation needs to be held on certain terms. I'm stating the certainty of the articles, the regulations, and corporate law. You are stating occurrences that if true have big consequences, but you're not providing evidence to support your beliefs. Saying they've been expelled, saying they cannot vote anymore, this sort of stuff feeds the fantasy 'EFL vendetta' nonsense that Derby fans are spouting. It undermines confidence in the EFL as a body, and sows seeds of confusion amongst fans.

I think we're somewhere between semantics and practicality and doubtless will find out soon. No vendetta, but wasn't there something similar in the Bury case? There I believe questions were raised as to their ability to raise resolutions (seeking absolution from previous failings perhaps,) and their inability to bid for upcoming grants, both of which would fall within the normal remit of members. In previous insolvencies where grants/loans were recalled, so as to ring-fence under 'football debt' but in doing so breaking the camel's back, I think the criteria as to how and when this was done was also questioned, it appearing to be related more to status, history and popularity amongst fellow members than statute regulation. Likewise, I'm uncertain of the EFL & PL payment distribution schedules but think some of these are close season to help clubs out with cashflow. Once in administration I think these may be deferred and set aside to cover 'football related' debt where insolvency looks an imminent possibility, football acting to protect its members using the unusual circumstance of priorities administrators may not question.

In Bury's case wasn't influence also sought as to how far peers would let them fall down the pyramid (which as you know isn't cut and dried in FA regulation and historically has been applied to suit - the old 'have to apply AND be accepted ploy'?)

Derby may retain a voting share, point being are they able to exercise it and, if do, for what?  Are they automatically entitled to draw down on grants and distributions which through membership they would normally have access? If they are that's presumably through the administrators, though as I highlighted is that proven as from the EFL's terse comments at the weekend that doesn't appear to be a given? One supposes should Derby directors retain the vote this might that be exercised with the expressed authority of the administrators, though from what I've heard at City such EFL matters tend to be decided at pace either via electronic exchange or emergency meeting, neither of which leave leeway for delayed 3rd party authorizations. If administrators are not recognised to vote (though the club retains a voting share,) effectively Derby are a member in name only, in limbo, up the creek without a paddle at EFL's mercy. So yes, that would have serious consequences should that be the case. 

The administrators (should) wear many hats so strikes me the EFL could run into problems should a challenged yet exercised vote within their structure be of disbenefit to creditors. You've already highlighted areas which are impacted once entering administration where membership 'rights' are effectively denied but which return once exiting administration.

I'm trying to find the previous guidance, though think much of that produced by the EFL is done on the fly, so it may have changed case by case.

3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Ok. I think we need to be very clear what we mean when we are saying that a club has been expelled from the EFL. It's a pretty serious thing, and getting it wrong will lead to all sorts of incorrect conclusions about the state Derby are in. 

This is about the black and white (together?) of the Articles of Association of The Football League Limited (and related Regulations). Ownership of a share in the The Football League Limited is not symbolic at all, it is the membership ticket that allows a club to participate in the division it is in, to play matches, and to benefit from prize money and other financial distributions. This is why any potential buyer wants to buy the entity to which the share is issued. If a share was symbolic only then one could simply purchase the badge, the IP, maybe the stadium, and have player contracts assigned from that entity, and then participate in the competitions organised by EFL. But that's not the case because Articles and the Regulations say that a 'Member Club' is a club that is a shareholder (although they use the word Member) of The Football League Limited - so an entity can only be a member if you are a shareholder of that company.

Correct. Article 6 is a pretty standard form article prohibiting the transfer of any share without the approval of the Board of the EFL.

Kind of. If by 'EFL' you mean The Football League Limited then of course, when promoted from the Championship or relegated from League 2, a club may - under Regulation 4.1 - resign from membership of The Football League Limited at the end of a season. Resigning in any other way activates the indemnity in Regulation 4.2. The actual obligation on The Football League Limited to accept these resignations is in Regulations 7.7, 7.8, and 10 - those conditions are long and dull but essentially The Football League Limited promise to honour promotion and relegation by enabling the issue and repurchase of such shares as are necessary.

Yes, as set out in my earlier post.

No. Ownership of a share is membership and it's not possible to separate the two concepts. Derby County Football Club Limited (in administration) is under Notice that the Board of the The Football League Limited intend to force them to sell their share - the share currently held by Derby County Football Club Limited (in administration) - for 5p. That Notice of Withdrawal is referred to in the statement from yesterday "The EFL has today informed the Administrators at Derby County that...it is changing the terms of the suspended Notice of Withdrawal issued when the Club entered into administration in September 2021." and "The suspension of the Notice of Withdrawal of the Club’s share in the EFL is subject to conditions that, in accordance with the League’s insolvency policy, the EFL Board determine...". Both these are consistent with the procedure I set out, as it is set out within the articles of The Football League Limited. This is also clear that a) a Notice has been issued, but b) it is suspended. The Notice is suspended, not the membership.

Furthermore, anecdotally Derby County Football Club (in administration) must have still held (and still does hold) a valid membership after entering administration. If it did not, if it were expelled at the point at which it entered administration, then under the articles and Regulations it had no right to compete in any EFL competition since September 2021. Yet it did.

The Joint Administrators would each individually almost certainly pass the Owners and Directors test. All three are licensed insolvency practitioners and so, given that registration is onerous as well, are unlikely to have been involved in any Disqualifying Event.

The Joint Administrators control a company that holds a share in The Football League Limited. So they do have some power - they control one vote out of the 72 that could feasibly be cast in any EFL vote.

As I said, and as the EFL say in their statement, these powers are imposed under the conditions of the Notice of Withdrawal - ie under article 4.8 of the articles of association. "...the EFL has informed the Administrators that there will be a revision to the conditions attached to the suspension and the EFL is now to be made a party to all correspondence and discussions between the Administrators, and any and all potential bidders, with an acknowledgment that the League will be able to negotiate directly in relation to matters concerning the transfer of the share in the EFL." It is pretty clear. It also supports the argument that Derby County Football Club Ltd remains a Member Club as if it was not a Member Club then it would no longer be bound by article 4.8 and so could simply ignore the EFL's changes to the Notice of Withdrawal...because it would already have been withdrawn from the register of shareholders of the Football League Limited.

In the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary we have to go with the legal structure set out in the articles and Regulations.

I made clear they hadn't been expelled.

I do believe I've previously seen that their membership rights are severly curtailed once entering administration. They hold a share, but that's about it. For example I don't believe they are able to vote or stand for election on any EFL board or committee, nor may their administrators. The administrators don't take beneficial ownership of the company they administer, they administer on behalf of that owner, their creditors and debtors.  Derby remain entitled to distributions via the EFL but I believe the EFL maintain the right to withhold or distribute should they believe the administrators are not acting in terms of the priorities they should. The statement yesterday and the EFL stepping in as they are suggests they did not believe the administrators are acting as they should.

For example, there was nothing in the regulation for the EFL to demand the Administrators run everything past them first, but they have and can. They can amend at will, require no emergency endorsement via other members and that's what they just done.

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In fact, though I undoubtedly agree with the thrust of your post, there was some puzzlement there too- was the "Profits method" as opposed to DRC IIRC- this was a sticking point between club and EFL.

DRC was £74.4m and for some unaccountable reason, the Profits method of £81.1m was upheld. DRC seems the only sensible method for this kinda transaction IMO.

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/media/get/EFL Derby County Decision Document.pdf

I get the DRC method but I struggle to see how the Profits method is that reliable- feels like it is rather open to fluctuation! From IDC 1. Is a long read- 123 pages- but there are bits on it, 

I think the test failed as although Derby cited a 'With Profits' figure based on non assured, impaired accounts, the clever lawyers managed to extract a range of DRC values based on the point I made, that nobody ever rebuilds as was, such there was a consideration for a DRC figure for what most likely would have been a replacement. The judgement looked at the lower and higher DRCs and the midpoint was slightly higher than the 'With Profits' figure Derby had used, therefore had to conclude the EFL hadn't proven the charge the stadium was over valued, though any sensible person knows that DRC is NOT a realistic market valuation, it's for accountancy and risk only. Derby won on semantics, not fact.

For stuff like commercial buildings 'With Profits' is a very reliable measure, hence buildings values fluctuate dependant upon the quality of leases issued against them.

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

That was what made the stadium "sale" so dodgy, as as ffp was concerned.

As no actual money changed hands, it was, as you say, a paper transaction. This in turn meant that the sale was based not on an open market transaction, but what is termed in the mortgage industry a desk valuation. With no real market comparables it was wide open for the "professional and independent" valuation to be manipulated.

Surprise, surprise Pride Park was valued at just the figure necessary to duck a ffp breach!

The EFL were naively duped by Morris (when he had them on a string), in the same way as are referees by play acting and cheating players.

Where's the £80m valuation now?

If you care to scroll back many pages I've explained several times in detail as to how the £81m figure was derived. In brief, it wasn't a market value as most imagine , rather a Depreciated Replacement Cost assessment (that wholly different from any mortgage based assessment.) DRCs are used for unusual, bespoke assets - visit the RICS website where they've dozens of technical papers explaining where these are appropriate and how they function. It's basically how much would it cost to rebuild what I've got? Problem being nobody ever bothers to rebuild as was, never happens as rather you'd always go for something more modern. It works for accounting and insurance purposes and also, as Morris exploited, to get around EFL FFP/P&S policy.

4 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

This aspect has always intrigued me - taken from the Derby Fans forum.

It still baffles me as to how Mel Morris was able to buy a stadium for £80m, but never transfer any funds to the club at all - as far as I understand it was simply an accounting transaction, but in reality we received no money and lost a stadium. We know he's been a bit underhand for a long time as our 'custodian' but I want all the skeletons. 

Is the answer that MM was/is owed millions by the football club as a result of his numerous loans, and has taken the stadium in part-payment (I understand the nuances of separating the stadium from the football club in case of future financial problems) or is there another reason(s)? 

Simply an FFP / P&S transaction.

The football club show a profit (difference between on book and inflated sale,) that year,  the club's holding company loaned the money (sic) to the stadium company to 'buy' the stadium such as they were all under the same control it's a circular transaction. In theory the club's holding company is owed but added value was never there in the first place. 

Imagine selling a fine bottle of wine to your better half for quadruple it's market value, paid for with monies you've loaned. From a household perspective how much wealthier are you?

I think it best to wait until anything is officially announced. Baker's health, for him and his family, is paramount.

I know City have handled this brilliantly to date, it's about him and his wellbeing, not money.

32 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Would be good if you could find that.

You're right I think that the Joint Admins don't have quite the same status as a director. I think if you read the Regs then technically a Joint Admin should have to satisfy the Owners and Directors test. They act as though they are directors, and so are caught by the test. Yet we never hear anything to suggest they have been asked to satisfy the test (although I doubt they would fail), and so it is implied that the EFL are satisfied somehow that they actually aren't quite equivalent to a director. Yet, as you point out, the directors no longer have authority to act as such - because some of their powers are handed over to the Joint Admins under normal insolvency rules. It is an odd situation...but does it create something more than the Notice and related suspension process that I outlined in my earlier post?

I think you/the EFL/everyone needs to be clear that membership of the EFL is only conferred by the holding of a share in The Football League Limited. Owning a share is binary, you either own it or you don't. It doesn't really allow for ""..membership [being] revoked immediately but not ratified within a given timeframe". You can suspend or change certain rights and powers granted by that share, but ultimately we'd all know if Debry had been forced to sell their share in the The Football League Limited.

Understand where you are coming from but I believe the EFL view membership as somewhat more than simply holding a (largely symbolic) share. Recall one can't gift or pass the share to anyone (that requires EFL approval,) when exiting the EFL either way one has to cede the share (no choice in the matter,) and the share may be removed via the expulsion process. Ultimately Derby may have to be expelled using that process but I believe buried amongst the nebulous discretionary clauses the EFL love, that once in administration one's membership (though not technically share at that point,) is removed.

From yesterday's statement I'm not sure the EFL might think Q 'fit and proper' but that's moot given, if I remember correctly, Q will have no power or influence within the EFL membership. Consider also the extraordinary powers the EFL exerted yesterday, setting mandatory constraints on how the administrators MUST act. Wouldn't happen elsewhere in business but I think they are able to do so under the membership powers (i.e. if you don't like it you don't have to be a member of this group.)

1 hour ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

It was more about the rules surrounding youth players and the length of time between games I think. I believe it`s longer than the 48hrs that it is for senior pros.

I think that's right, it was the recovery gap between games. Odd when one considers I could play several games a day at that age but that reduced to weekly within a few years....post match alcohol recovery being the issue....

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If they have say 23 of first team, youth and scholars then no new signings required!

As per my comment yesterday re Dylan Williams, League rules quickly prevent clubs fielding first teams comprised of very young kids. Trainees and scholars may only play a handful of first team games before they MUST be issued full adult contracts. There are also limits on the number of trainees and scholars that may appear in the first team at the same time (it isn't many). Without offering adult contracts you'd need hundred of kids to get through a season.

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

Not quite my reading of it.

A club is Member of the EFL by virtue of being a shareholder in The Football League Limited. Thay membership is governed primarily by the Articles of Association of the Football League Limited.

Article 4.5 gives the Board of the EFL power to send the Notice telling a Member to sell their share for 5p. That power is enabled when one of the events in Article 4.7 happens. In Derby's case its 4.7.4 - an Insolvency Event.

So yes, on the face of it the sequence of events goes as you say.

However, Article 4.8 gives the Board the additional power to suspend that Notice for as long as they like, and to impose conditions relating to that suspension, and that's what they've done to Derby.

I can't see anything in the Articles that automatically suspends voting rights when a Member is served a Notice under Article 4.5, although I guess that could be one of the special conditions. Not heard that it is in Derby's case though.

The Regulations are the other governing doc. Regulations 4.3 grants a general power to expel a club, but again I don't think that's happened and it says nothing about being automatic upon entering admin. The Regs are long, and I've not read them in detail. There are a ton of requirements that might lead to penalties, but I don't think there's anything that overrides those provisions of the Articles, and so there's nothing to "expel" Derby from the league automatically. 

Now, all of that doesn't mean they can't be kicked out bloody sharpish should the Board wish. There's certainly a sword of Damocles hanging over them right now. But, for now, they remain a Member.

I can't find it at present but think the EFL issued a few years back one of their enhanced guidance notes (they've many,) which filled in the gaps left by badly worded policy re administration events.

I seem to recall for administration this entailed an amended procedure and timeline from the stated expulsion process designed for malpractice (the general regs assumed clubs heading for insolvency would do the decent thing and resign.) I think in administration an additional prior notice to the formal expulsion notice is issued but it has a similar effect, namely that it isn't a suspension of the threat to remove membership, rather membership is revoked immediately but not ratified within a given timeframe (as would be the case in explusion.) The change sounded moot but there were technical reasons for it working that way round and they seemed to make sense at the time. For example, club officials have no authority to act in any capacity, that having been passed to the administrators, such they couldn't stand for EFL election or continue to sit on EFL voting committees whilst administration remained active. It eliminated any risk that clubs might seek to use marginal voting influence to their own advantage, not the good of the game. Administrators couldn't stand or vote on clubs behalf as, de facto, they're independent and not EFL members, a sort of Catch 22. I think there was also something about clubs/administrators not having automatic rights to payment schedules, that these moved to the discretion of the EFL. Monies would still be payable through the administration period(and were where administrators were playing ball,) though the EFL could step in and manage themselves such they would be able to ensure the football side hierarchy of payment never lost out. Sounded wholly contrary to common law but that's football and association membership for you.

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Is that right? Isn't it that they are a Member, but they are on a suspended Notice to sell their share (the Notice referred to in the latest EFL statement). So long as they hold a share, they are a Member. Why do you say they are no longer a Member as of entry into Admin? They kind of have to remain a Member so that the EFL's Articles and Regs can remain enforceable against them.

Sunday boozing isn't always wise.

My understanding is once served notice they are technically expelled from the EFL and their share suspended (they lose rights over voting et al,) but may continue operating until as confirmation of their expulsion is deferred until voted by the board, this gives them a chance to put things right. Expulsion does have a number of knock on impacts on other areas.