Derby County

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

This might be a simplistic take on this.

When the new ffp rules and limits were introduced Morris, in common with the owners of every other club, had 3 years in which to take the appropriate steps to bring Derby’s finances into line by the time of the first ffp reckoning. As we now know he did none of that, choosing instead to continue to spend, spend, spend in an attempt to gain promotion to the prem so that he had to resort to the convoluted “sale” of Pride Park to avoid them hitting the ffp buffers.

Had he taken the right steps financially at the outset, yes it would have compromised their promotion aims, but that was the case for every other club that did comply, but more importantly, with better financial controls back then would Derby’s position have become so dire that administration become the only option?

I used to be a mortgage adviser and remember seeing various clients following the “credit crunch” in 2008 onwards. Many of them had been living beyond their means for a few years, racking up overdraft, credit cards and personal loans and then re-mortgaging when they reached their credit limits, to consolidate their debts and bring monthly payments down. They would rinse and repeat this excercise whenever the debts reached a critical level. Unfortunately with the collapse of  property values they were no longer able to do this and their financial chickens would inevitably come home to roost. Funnily enough, according to the clients it was never their own actions that caused the problem, but they would usually cite the impact of the credit crunch/recession/ less overtime etc. etc..

I can understand the administrator looking for every means by which to improve Derby’s appeal to a prospective purchaser, but It seems to me that Covid is a convenient reason on which to hang an appeal ( and yet another option for Derby to play the victim being pursued by the heartless EFL), but it does seem to me that, like many of my mortgage clients,  Morris bought most of this on the club due to his profligacy at a time when the new financial rules should have caused him to be more financially cautious and responsible.

 

Agree with all that you say. His prolifigacy and attempts to fudge it, to kick the can down the road is all somewhat self-inflicted.

Chickens home to roost is a good way to put it. One of the sets of written reasons basically had Derby claiming that the ongoing saga had an effect on their reputation, their valuation, many things. That the lengthy embargo type conditions were damaging- many things. They also argued the time under embargo could be considered to be a mitigating factor.

Now I dare say that was true but the truth is that it was self-inflicted- the League Arbitration Panel basically said as much.

Had he been a bit more cautious in the run-up then as you say, more headroom to deal with this.

Administrators will of course try anything to enhance prospects of a takeover. I hope that the appeal fails of course, and again seems at odds with the seven day limit.

Anyway I hope it fails and hardens the position of the EFL and other clubs against them as they may well need goodwill depending on the structure of the takeover.

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, downendcity said:

This might be a simplistic take on this.

When the new ffp rules and limits were introduced Morris, in common with the owners of every other club, had 3 years in which to take the appropriate steps to bring Derby’s finances into line by the time of the first ffp reckoning. As we now know he did none of that, choosing instead to continue to spend, spend, spend in an attempt to gain promotion to the prem so that he had to resort to the convoluted “sale” of Pride Park to avoid them hitting the ffp buffers.

Had he taken the right steps financially at the outset, yes it would have compromised their promotion aims, but that was the case for every other club that did comply, but more importantly, with better financial controls back then would Derby’s position have become so dire that administration become the only option?

I used to be a mortgage adviser and remember seeing various clients following the “credit crunch” in 2008 onwards. Many of them had been living beyond their means for a few years, racking up overdraft, credit cards and personal loans and then re-mortgaging when they reached their credit limits, to consolidate their debts and bring monthly payments down. They would rinse and repeat this excercise whenever the debts reached a critical level. Unfortunately with the collapse of  property values they were no longer able to do this and their financial chickens would inevitably come home to roost. Funnily enough, according to the clients it was never their own actions that caused the problem, but they would usually cite the impact of the credit crunch/recession/ less overtime etc. etc..

I can understand the administrator looking for every means by which to improve Derby’s appeal to a prospective purchaser, but It seems to me that Covid is a convenient reason on which to hang an appeal ( and yet another option for Derby to play the victim being pursued by the heartless EFL), but it does seem to me that, like many of my mortgage clients,  Morris bought most of this on the club due to his profligacy at a time when the new financial rules should have caused him to be more financially cautious and responsible.

 

Perhaps they shouldn’t have made all the signings they made last summer

[AnotherDerbyFan]

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

This might be a simplistic take on this.

When the new ffp rules and limits were introduced Morris, in common with the owners of every other club, had 3 years in which to take the appropriate steps to bring Derby’s finances into line by the time of the first ffp reckoning. As we now know he did none of that, choosing instead to continue to spend, spend, spend in an attempt to gain promotion to the prem so that he had to resort to the convoluted “sale” of Pride Park to avoid them hitting the ffp buffers.

Had he taken the right steps financially at the outset, yes it would have compromised their promotion aims, but that was the case for every other club that did comply, but more importantly, with better financial controls back then would Derby’s position have become so dire that administration become the only option?

I used to be a mortgage adviser and remember seeing various clients following the “credit crunch” in 2008 onwards. Many of them had been living beyond their means for a few years, racking up overdraft, credit cards and personal loans and then re-mortgaging when they reached their credit limits, to consolidate their debts and bring monthly payments down. They would rinse and repeat this excercise whenever the debts reached a critical level. Unfortunately with the collapse of  property values they were no longer able to do this and their financial chickens would inevitably come home to roost. Funnily enough, according to the clients it was never their own actions that caused the problem, but they would usually cite the impact of the credit crunch/recession/ less overtime etc. etc..

I can understand the administrator looking for every means by which to improve Derby’s appeal to a prospective purchaser, but It seems to me that Covid is a convenient reason on which to hang an appeal ( and yet another option for Derby to play the victim being pursued by the heartless EFL), but it does seem to me that, like many of my mortgage clients,  Morris bought most of this on the club due to his profligacy at a time when the new financial rules should have caused him to be more financially cautious and responsible.

 

Past spending is irrelevant if the club could have avoided administration completely if it wasn't for Covid. In my opinion there are two key questions:

1. At which point do you take that snapshot?
2. Could we have avoided administration despite Covid?

Would that snapshot be the start of Covid lockdowns (March 2020), the start of the 20/21 season, or do you also factor in the belief that we wouldn't have been in lockdown for anywhere near as long (end of 19/20 we were hoping to have fans in from the start of the 20/21 season, then it was pushed back a few months...?
We could have not bought players last summer such as Jozwiak and Byrne for fees plus others for free, but this could be ignored depending on when the snapshot is taken. We definitely could have sold players inn the summer window just gone (notably Buchanan and Lawrence who both had bids rejected) and I think they have to look into whether Mel could have carried on funding the club.

I personally think we'll be unsuccessful purely based on those final two reasons. I am hoping to be wrong though 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Mel has quite good wealth still so I've read? Read differing things on that, he's hardly likely to be down to his last few million. Clearly wealth is in the form of cash and assets and takes different forms but I find it hard to believe that he literally couldn't fund them anymore.

The club's cash position. In 2017/18 this was only propped up by the Pride Park sale. By the club I actually mean the consolidated, it suggests that the club were burning through a lot of cash even prior to Covid.

Now whether that's actually been paid either in part or full is a matter of debate but that being the case it should not have been included in the Cash Flow for that year surely. It literally says £81.1m, which implies that it was or should've been paid at the time- cannot have it both ways.

[Davefevs]

43 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Past spending is irrelevant if the club could have avoided administration completely if it wasn't for Covid. In my opinion there are two key questions:

1. At which point do you take that snapshot?
2. Could we have avoided administration despite Covid?

Would that snapshot be the start of Covid lockdowns (March 2020), the start of the 20/21 season, or do you also factor in the belief that we wouldn't have been in lockdown for anywhere near as long (end of 19/20 we were hoping to have fans in from the start of the 20/21 season, then it was pushed back a few months...?
We could have not bought players last summer such as Jozwiak and Byrne for fees plus others for free, but this could be ignored depending on when the snapshot is taken. We definitely could have sold players inn the summer window just gone (notably Buchanan and Lawrence who both had bids rejected) and I think they have to look into whether Mel could have carried on funding the club.

I personally think we'll be unsuccessful purely based on those final two reasons. I am hoping to be wrong though 

I would hope that regular snapshots and projections were done, on various scenarios:

• best case, season started but full crowds by Sept/Oct
• worst case, no crowds in 20/21
• sone scenarios in between

But, even if this scenario planning did take place, Mel just went with the most risky / reckless option.  Other clubs didn’t, they scaled back.  So did Derby to some extent, but you still sacked Cocu at a huge cost.  You still spent more than us on signings.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

I would hope that regular snapshots and projections were done, on various scenarios:

• best case, season started but full crowds by Sept/Oct
• worst case, no crowds in 20/21
• sone scenarios in between

But, even if this scenario planning did take place, Mel just went with the most risky / reckless option.  Other clubs didn’t, they scaled back.  So did Derby to some extent, but you still sacked Cocu at a huge cost.  You still spent more than us on signings.

Good post. Should add that they're trying to get out of paying Cocu his full whack claiming that he's an Unsecured Football Creditor. At least according to John Percy the other week.

[Davefevs]

19 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Good post. Should add that they're trying to get out of paying Cocu his full whack claiming that he's an Unsecured Football Creditor. At least according to John Percy the other week.

I think that is just poor terminology/ ambiguity from Percy.  He’s not secured like a charge over a loan, but he is a football creditor….and will be ahead on non-football creditors….imho.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I would hope that regular snapshots and projections were done, on various scenarios:

• best case, season started but full crowds by Sept/Oct
• worst case, no crowds in 20/21
• sone scenarios in between

Maybe the way to look at it milestones. So were the club's actions at that exact point in time in line with what they're saying.
If there wasn't any lockdown at all from March 2020 onwards, would we have been fine?
Did our transfer activity in summer 2020 mean that we would have been fine if stadiums were opened up as expected at the time?
Did our transfer activity in Jan 2021?
Did our transfer activity in summer 2021?

Arguments could be made for either side for most of those. However, other than reducing the wage bill in summer 2021, we'll have a big task arguing in favour of not needing to sell players when we had bids for them.

29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

But, even if this scenario planning did take place, Mel just went with the most risky / reckless option.  Other clubs didn’t, they scaled back.  So did Derby to some extent, but you still sacked Cocu at a huge cost.  You still spent more than us on signings.

I doubt any money has made its way to Cocu to date, so I wouldn't put that as a factor against the admin appeal.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I think that is just poor terminology/ ambiguity from Percy.  He’s not secured like a charge over a loan, but he is a football creditor….and will be ahead on non-football creditors….imho.

Agreed. Although I did some googling and digging into past admins and John Hollins only got a small slug from Swansea in 2001 or 2002 time, Paul Hart also voted against a CVA at Portsmouth in 2010- but surely by 2021 former managers should be classed as football creditors.

FWIW, my view is simple on this- the Arsenal Bielik favour was not IMO inevitable, because as I understand it, the EFL and the PL have power if required to deduct from central awards, distributions that are due to football creditors once a club are in administration.

My take on this is that if Central Awards are paid I dunno quarterly- not sure how it shakes down, Central Awards distribution. For this argument, let's just say that TV cash + Solidarity Cash at our level=£10m per year in total and is paid quarterly.

Arsenal have an instalment of £1.4m due and DCFC cannot pay for a while- quarterly of £10m=£2.5m. You simply as the EFL divert £1.4m of that from Derby County direct to Arsenal- instalment paid, a problem solved or at least kicked down the road a bit.

If the same is applicable to other football creditors then I'd have no problem with the approach being applied there too.

[GreedyHarry]

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Maybe the way to look at it milestones. So were the club's actions at that exact point in time in line with what they're saying.
If there wasn't any lockdown at all from March 2020 onwards, would we have been fine?
Did our transfer activity in summer 2020 mean that we would have been fine if stadiums were opened up as expected at the time?
Did our transfer activity in Jan 2021?
Did our transfer activity in summer 2021?

Arguments could be made for either side for most of those. However, other than reducing the wage bill in summer 2021, we'll have a big task arguing in favour of not needing to sell players when we had bids for them.

I doubt any money has made its way to Cocu to date, so I wouldn't put that as a factor against the admin appeal.

 

You could also add “Did Derby get refused the loan/aid to help with the loss of income from COVID, and if they  hadn’t cheated, and were eligible for that cash,would that have staved off administration?”

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Maybe the way to look at it milestones. So were the club's actions at that exact point in time in line with what they're saying.
If there wasn't any lockdown at all from March 2020 onwards, would we have been fine?
Did our transfer activity in summer 2020 mean that we would have been fine if stadiums were opened up as expected at the time?
Did our transfer activity in Jan 2021?
Did our transfer activity in summer 2021?

Arguments could be made for either side for most of those. However, other than reducing the wage bill in summer 2021, we'll have a big task arguing in favour of not needing to sell players when we had bids for them.

I doubt any money has made its way to Cocu to date, so I wouldn't put that as a factor against the admin appeal.

 

I guess the point I’m making is if your “risk based approach” is to always look at the best case scenario, then you’re gonna make mistakes.  If Covid / Brexit has taught the average person something it’s about planning and the use of terms like “most likely worst case scenario” etc.  It appears that there was little thought about mitigating against the wearing of rose-tinted specs.

And then you (Derby / Mel / Administration team, not you literally) moan about it.

[Davefevs]

 

[hertsexile]

Here we go again Derby trying to stop due process by appealing. Why do they think they are a special case every other club that has gone into administration has excepted their 12 point deduction and got on with it ! 

[Lanterne Rouge]

5 minutes ago, hertsexile said:

Here we go again Derby trying to stop due process by appealing. Why do they think they are a special case every other club that has gone into administration has excepted their 12 point deduction and got on with it ! 

Because they`re Derby County you old silly!

In an ideal world it would be like frivolous appeals against red cards and the penalty would be doubled.

[Loosey Boy]

Poor old Derby County - always treated badly aren’t they!

Hope they are told to take their punishment (it’s in the rules and has been for many years) for going into Admin.

Then…..they can take their punishment for dodgy accounting over all these years too!

[AnotherDerbyFan]

1 hour ago, hertsexile said:

Here we go again Derby trying to stop due process by appealing. Why do they think they are a special case every other club that has gone into administration has excepted their 12 point deduction and got on with it ! 

Wigan

[Port Said Red]

52 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Wigan

Pier

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Wigan appealed and failed- quite rightly so. Had they ironically pushed for a smaller deduction instead of an annulment you never know but no their case was always a non-starter.

In this case, there are legitimate and valid questions owing to the lack of transparency as to whether the appeal was in the correct timeframe- Nixon said it was but if it was after seven days then it should be automatically struck down- a reminder.

Quote

12.2.3 "the reputation of the League and the need to promote the game of association football generally;"

This alone strikes me as having a need to dismiss the appeal.

Quote

Club Income definition- Maybe but then again "This could only be grounds for appeal, however, if the loss occurs during the currency of a binding agreement (i.e. not upon expiry).

On a side note though, Wigan had one thing and they appealed- and lost. Derby though have been trying to squirm, spawn, slime their way out of punishments for 2-3 years, sacking people potentially not in accordance with employment regs- Keogh.

Horrible club. Under Mel anyway. EFL regulations are a good way to keep the pressure on. Their fans need to learn the hard way, a lot of them.

Also see.

Seven days. The EFL IMO need to clarify that everything in this has been met within seven days and no longer...if not then it breaches their own regulations.

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/b3cd34c726c341ca9636610aa4503172/regulations-season-2021-22-final.pdf

Burden of proof is on the club and based on balance of probabilities it seems.

If the Club need to bear the burden of proof, does this mean that it is they who need to prove that it was Force Majeure that tipped them into administration?

Quote

The burden of proof is on the claimant, who must prove that on the balance of probabilities, his/her case is true. This means that the court must be satisfied that on the evidence, the occurrence of an event was more likely than not.28 Feb 2019

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

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.   

Edited October 12, 2021 by Hxj

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

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.   

In a nutshell….great post.

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

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.   

True though the other side of the coin is that markets don't like uncertainty. So if the process is dragged out for another few months is any potential buyer going to commit? And do the Administrators have to borrow to fund the club for another few months, assuming they have achieved their original aim of raising a loan to fund it until January?

Just looks like a continuation of Morris' delaying tactics to me.

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, chinapig said:

True though the other side of the coin is that markets don't like uncertainty. So if the process is dragged out for another few months is any potential buyer going to commit? And do the Administrators have to borrow to fund the club for another few months, assuming they have achieved their original aim of raising a loan to fund it until January?

Just looks like a continuation of Morris' delaying tactics to me.

…..and delaying tactics look to be exactly the opposite of what is required at this point.

[Hxj]

23 minutes ago, chinapig said:

True though the other side of the coin is that markets don't like uncertainty.

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.

25 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Just looks like a continuation of Morris' delaying tactics to me.

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.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Think it says on the EFL site that appeals for this are heard within 3 weeks? Can't remember the exact number but no major delays feel likely with the administration appeal. Late October to mid November IMO.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Think it says on the EFL site that appeals for this are heard within 3 weeks? Can't remember the exact number but no major delays feel likely with the administration appeal. Late October to mid November IMO.

Wigan's was about a month iirc

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Wigan's was about a month iirc

Sounds right. It shouldn't drag in any case.

I suppose a question might be, a tweet by Nixon aside-which is something we'll go with- is it cast iron guaranteed that Derby have submitted all of their evidence including the several years of accounts required within the prerequisite seven days?

I won't post it again but a deadline is a deadline is a deadline. The regs stated everything that needed to be submitted within that seven day window.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interestingly, skim reading the Derby forum.

Ghost of Clough talks a lot of sense, as per tbh. That aside an interesting quote, although I certainly haven't fact checked. Not a quote but a claim. Rooney declared in the summer that no players would leave without his say so

That could be seen as putting competitiveness on the pitch over aversion of financial difficulties potentially. I hope that the EFL pick up on it- provided that it is true and a fair reflection of course.

Rooney said that Lawrence not for sale at any price in August.

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/wayne-rooney-addresses-derby-county-player-sale-talk-amid-west-brom-interest/

Any other quotes along these lines?

Edited October 12, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Lanterne Rouge]

7 hours ago, Hxj said:

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.

Will the administrators have to accept the `best` offer on the table or will they have, in effect, a `reserve` price for players. Take Lawrence for example - if the best offer was, say, 500k (extreme example I know) would they be bound to accept it or can they say no, you`re taking the piss? 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Lanterne Rouge

[Jerseybean]

Just when you think it c@not get any worse for their fans Mr Ashley allegedly is linked! https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58890351

 

[Hxj]

3 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Will the administrators have to accept the `best` offer on the table or will they have, in effect, a `reserve` price for players. Take Lawrence for example - if the best offer was, say, 500k (extreme example I know) would they be bound to accept it or can they say no, you`re taking the piss? 

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?

[downendcity]

11 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Will the administrators have to accept the `best` offer on the table or will they have, in effect, a `reserve` price for players. Take Lawrence for example - if the best offer was, say, 500k (extreme example I know) would they be bound to accept it or can they say no, you`re taking the piss? 

That would be case of the biter bit then, as Derby has been taking the piss for the last 4 years!

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

That would be case of the biter bit then, as Derby has been taking the piss for the last 4 years!

Under Mel’s old model, Lawrence would probably still be worth £5m in the books, maybe slightly less now in final year.  But under new amortisation method, will be less than £1m.  Whether that will influence any fee the Administrators might accept I don’t know?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had a bit of a look today at it all and I have to say I'm a bit worried about the bar being low enough for Derby to overturn.

Their accounts clearly show a pattern to 2018 of escalating spending and 2019 as well no doubt if we ever see those would show substantial losses.

As I understand it the Club shall bear burden of proof but in these types of cases it's balance of probability IIRC. One metric I saw suggested anything above 50-50 and the Club win.

The EFL regs don't seem as specific as they might be, in terms of definitions.

Thoughts @Hxj what chance do we think of it being overturned? I've read the regs and they don't seem as specific as they might be.

[GreedyHarry]

I think I have come up with a solution that satisfies all parties.

Firstly, allow Derby to keep stringing everybody along.

Secondly, all Championship teams fail to field a team for every fixture with Derby thus forfeiting their matches and ensuring they get promoted automatically.

Thirdly, when they are gone accumulating a new record low points total in the Premiership, to beat their existing record. The EFL, via their members pass a new rule that any club with outstanding and unsettled P&S issues,or other points deductions are banned from entrance to the EFL.

Et voila, Derby get to be in the Premiership (for one season), and the EFL and it’s members get rid of a club that has no respect for the rules.

Of course, readmission could be allowed with a 30 point deduction for each of the first two seasons.

[hertsexile]

2 minutes ago, GreedyHarry said:

I think I have come up with a solution that satisfies all parties.

Firstly, allow Derby to keep stringing everybody along.

Secondly, all Championship teams fail to field a team for every fixture with Derby thus forfeiting their matches and ensuring they get promoted automatically.

Thirdly, when they are gone accumulating a new record low points total in the Premiership, to beat their existing record. The EFL, via their members pass a new rule that any club with outstanding and unsettled P&S issues,or other points deductions are banned from entrance to the EFL.

Et voila, Derby get to be in the Premiership (for one season), and the EFL and it’s members get rid of a club that has no respect for the rules.

Of course, readmission could be allowed with a 30 point deduction for each of the first two seasons.

A great idea but once again I am sure Derby would go down the appeal route and mock the rules do wants the point. Derby continue to think they are above the law. The EFL just need to enforce their punishment appropriately 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, GreedyHarry said:

I think I have come up with a solution that satisfies all parties.

Firstly, allow Derby to keep stringing everybody along.

Secondly, all Championship teams fail to field a team for every fixture with Derby thus forfeiting their matches and ensuring they get promoted automatically.

Thirdly, when they are gone accumulating a new record low points total in the Premiership, to beat their existing record. The EFL, via their members pass a new rule that any club with outstanding and unsettled P&S issues,or other points deductions are banned from entrance to the EFL.

Et voila, Derby get to be in the Premiership (for one season), and the EFL and it’s members get rid of a club that has no respect for the rules.

Of course, readmission could be allowed with a 30 point deduction for each of the first two seasons.

 

1 hour ago, hertsexile said:

A great idea but once again I am sure Derby would go down the appeal route and mock the rules do wants the point. Derby continue to think they are above the law. The EFL just need to enforce their punishment appropriately 

Not much scope for appeal in that scenario. No golden share if they don't agree or at best no fixtures to be allocated to them.

In this particular scenario, we're reliant on an Independent Panel- I read a suggestion that 'Unwell' Mel Morris is pushing this. 

He by amazing medical coincidence had Covid twice to the extent he was either in hospital or on a ventilator. Forget FFP, it's a matter for medical and scientific analysis!!

They are a scummy club though, I am starting to wonder at what point clubs can look seriously at their League membership let's say, I've never known a Championship regular to act like this for as long with such misplaced indignation. Scum. 

PS, Andronikou is the same guy who was at Portsmouth. He made multiple appeals there on various issues, don't think any succeeded he has form.

How many would actually miss Derby if they went pop? I have had great sympathy with every or most club insolvencies to date but am finding it hard to muster up all that much for the current iteration of Derby. 

Perhaps for greater good it would send shockwaves through the game and if HMRC don't blink it would also be beneficial. It won't happen though of course so it's fine to speculate.

Two more thoughts. Clubs under suspicion or accused of P&S/FFP breaches on the way up get stripped of their Parachute Payments on return. Would need either PL agreement or a truly Independent regulator for football.

On balance I wouldn't mind Derby not going bust. Being purchased by an asset stripper would be fitting however.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[22A]

1 hour ago, GreedyHarry said:

The EFL, via their members pass a new rule that any club with outstanding and unsettled P&S issues,or other points deductions are banned from entrance to the EFL.

 

A few years ago weren't QPR threatened with something like this? If the eFL refused to have them, QPR would have gone from the Prem straight into the National League.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/37412-derby-county-administration-with-the-slight-possibility-of-liquidation-still-there/page/171/#comments there's talk of a group making an offer to buy club, ground and training ground for £45 million.

Edited October 13, 2021 by 22A

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, 22A said:

A few years ago weren't QPR threatened with something like this? If the eFL refused to have them, QPR would have gone from the Prem straight into the National League.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/37412-derby-county-administration-with-the-slight-possibility-of-liquidation-still-there/page/171/#comments there's talk of a group making an offer to buy club, ground and training ground for £45 million.

IIRC the QPR threat was tied to any refusal to negotiate, go to Arbitration or pay up outright. They agreed to arbitrate and the EFL didn't seem unhappy at the prospect.

Some sort of auto hard Embargo combined with the obligation to still comply with FFP could be a good starting point for 

Yes saw that. I would be very interested to know the take of the EFL if the club and the assets- one of which went for £81m- going for £45m for the lot. That £45m isn't the sale price but doubtless a good chunk of debt,ie no sale price, pay down up to £45m in debt.

Stadium being included however?? Err...£81m in 2018.

Derby fans hope for a clean slate under the new owners if there is relegation this year.

While I get that, not I'd suggest while there are such downsized transactions. I'd hope that the EFL would look to take steps.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Scummy club and scum is a tad overkill by me, on reflection- but I would suggest that Mel and Pearce are scumbags surely.

Their actions though smack of a great deal of arrogance, as a club and maybe as a chunk of the fanbase it seems to exist in abundance.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

@JamesBCFC

Administration appeal

It's a genuine disgrace that they are appealing it but they- and Andronikou in his Portsmouth days- have form, so though the audacity is shocking it is Derby and to an extent Andronikou. Probably late October to mid November.

FFP

That's still up for negotiation or a hearing. Mooted to be 9 pts plus a further 3 suspended and the usual business plan.

In the case of the 2nd, what I would like to see is a good catch-all approach, albeit I don't know if possible...

If avoid relegation this season by less than 9 pts- added to this season's total- down they go!

If relegated in any event- added to next seasons total- ie they start League One on -9 with a further 3 suspended and still in and around the business plan. The only way is up!

If survive by more than 9 pts, then next season ie start next season on -9 etc in the Championship- down the bottom of the League.

Think of it as a nice game of snakes and ladders.

They can keep haggling if they wish but they remain under embargo for many matters- and people are being disappointingly charitable, e.g. 32Red are forwarding some funding, Arsenal are letting them defer the Bielik instalment- as it goes there is a provision in terms of football creditors rule for this. For example if a club cannot meet their football creditor obligations as they fall due, then central funds/awards can be redirected in order to fulfil this or help to fulfil this. Ergo, a chunk of the next TV and Solidarity money should go to Arsenal for Bielik on release. that is to say instead of to Derby just send some to Arsenal if required and give Derby the remainder...unsure how TV and Solidarity money is distributed over a year/season however. I don't understand why that rule isn't automatic for clubs in administration what with the football creditors rule.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[The Constant Rabbit]

@Davefevs @Mr Popodopolous

If there was ever a time to implement a salary cap - then that time is now.

Have a look at Australian Rules Footy - the salary cap works really well.

Its combined with a draft rather than academies, but clubs use it well. Clubs have a player limit.

An example would be Gold Coast Suns, who are really right at their limit - so they gave away their draft pick #19 - as long as the club that took it (#19 usually gets you a good young 18yr old to your club) took a player and paid their wages.

So Fremantle Dockers took pick #19 plus GCS player Will Brodie - it was a win / win

GCS got Brodies $500,000 a year salary off the books, and Fremantle got a decent player in Brodie AND used pick #19 to then land a really talented youngster from Geelong Cats.

 

It would take some doing - but with say, a club only being allowed 25 players on their 'senior' list , and 10 on a 'rookie' list (who can go to 'senior' if a player is long-term injured) - a national draft from an 'academy pool' (with teams having 1st option on their own academy player) - and a salary cap, then things would be so much more stable in English Football.

 

I know it would be a long term project - but hopefully someone will start the ball rolling soon.

Perhaps the EFL could fund a study.

It's really the only way to ensure a level playing field - and prevent another 'Bury' disaster.

 

2p

[Davefevs]

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@JamesBCFC

Administration appeal

It's a genuine disgrace that they are appealing it but they- and Andronikou in his Portsmouth days- have form, so though the audacity is shocking it is Derby and to an extent Andronikou. Probably late October to mid November.

FFP

That's still up for negotiation or a hearing. Mooted to be 9 pts plus a further 3 suspended and the usual business plan.

In the case of the 2nd, what I would like to see is a good catch-all approach, albeit I don't know if possible...

If avoid relegation this season by less than 9 pts- added to this season's total- down they go!

If relegated in any event- added to next seasons total- ie they start League One on -9 with a further 3 suspended and still in and around the business plan. The only way is up!

If survive by more than 9 pts, then next season ie start next season on -9 etc in the Championship- down the bottom of the League.

Think of it as a nice game of snakes and ladders.

They can keep haggling if they wish but they remain under embargo for many matters- and people are being disappointingly charitable, e.g. 32Red are forwarding some funding, Arsenal are letting them defer the Bielik instalment- as it goes there is a provision in terms of football creditors rule for this. For example if a club cannot meet their football creditor obligations as they fall due, then central funds/awards can be redirected in order to fulfil this or help to fulfil this. Ergo, a chunk of the next TV and Solidarity money should go to Arsenal for Bielik on release. that is to say instead of to Derby just send some to Arsenal if required and give Derby the remainder...unsure how TV and Solidarity money is distributed over a year/season however. I don't understand why that rule isn't automatic for clubs in administration what with the football creditors rule.

Any points deduction will be this season, unless the penalty is awarded after some date in March…..and then the rules are as you suggest.

[downendcity]

Has Derby yet produced accounts yet? 

If I fail to submit my self assesment tax return on time I receive a fine, which escalates the longer I delay. I think I'm right in saying (because I've always submitted and paid on time) that any tax due can have a penalty applied depending how long payment is delayed. 

Something along these lines would sort clubs out in terms of submitting accounts with a sliding scale of points deductions for delayed submission of accounts. 

On that basis Derby would likely be in the Conference next season! 

[Davefevs]

29 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Has Derby yet produced accounts yet? 

If I fail to submit my self assesment tax return on time I receive a fine, which escalates the longer I delay. I think I'm right in saying (because I've always submitted and paid on time) that any tax due can have a penalty applied depending how long payment is delayed. 

Something along these lines would sort clubs out in terms of submitting accounts with a sliding scale of points deductions for delayed submission of accounts. 

On that basis Derby would likely be in the Conference next season! 

Think Mr P or HXJ said that it is not the Administrator’s responsibility to produce the missing accounts, but I guess whoever buys them might have to.

[downendcity]

26 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Think Mr P or HXJ said that it is not the Administrator’s responsibility to produce the missing accounts, but I guess whoever buys them might have to.

Weren't accounts outstanding for some time ime even before administration?

Also, going back to the first time the 3 year period was being assesses 2018?) when projected accounts were required for the third year by March IIRC, weren't there a number of clubs late/very late in submitting accounts? 

As with somany aspects of ffp rules, it seems the EFL naively assumed that all clubs would not only comply but would do so to the letter and on time. 

 

 

[chinapig]

46 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Think Mr P or HXJ said that it is not the Administrator’s responsibility to produce the missing accounts, but I guess whoever buys them might have to.

Does that mean that decisions will have to be made by the EFL or on appeal with some of the evidence missing? Surely not?

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 12/10/2021 at 22:34, Hxj said:

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?

Yep, final year. To keep things simple, only Bielik, Bird, Knight, Sibley and Jozwiak are currently contacted beyond the end of the season as a result of embargo restrictions.

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@JamesBCFC

Administration appeal

It's a genuine disgrace that they are appealing it but they- and Andronikou in his Portsmouth days- have form, so though the audacity is shocking it is Derby and to an extent Andronikou. Probably late October to mid November.

FFP

That's still up for negotiation or a hearing. Mooted to be 9 pts plus a further 3 suspended and the usual business plan.

In the case of the 2nd, what I would like to see is a good catch-all approach, albeit I don't know if possible...

If avoid relegation this season by less than 9 pts- added to this season's total- down they go!

If relegated in any event- added to next seasons total- ie they start League One on -9 with a further 3 suspended and still in and around the business plan. The only way is up!

If survive by more than 9 pts, then next season ie start next season on -9 etc in the Championship- down the bottom of the League.

Think of it as a nice game of snakes and ladders.

They can keep haggling if they wish but they remain under embargo for many matters- and people are being disappointingly charitable, e.g. 32Red are forwarding some funding, Arsenal are letting them defer the Bielik instalment- as it goes there is a provision in terms of football creditors rule for this. For example if a club cannot meet their football creditor obligations as they fall due, then central funds/awards can be redirected in order to fulfil this or help to fulfil this. Ergo, a chunk of the next TV and Solidarity money should go to Arsenal for Bielik on release. that is to say instead of to Derby just send some to Arsenal if required and give Derby the remainder...unsure how TV and Solidarity money is distributed over a year/season however. I don't understand why that rule isn't automatic for clubs in administration what with the football creditors rule.

I think you're being a bit harsh by calling it a disgrace. Based on the discussions we've had on the subject, you must surely concede that there is some merit to the appeal. You didn't say Wigan's appeal was a disgrace, yet their justification of the Covid impact was even weaker than ours.

The season the P&S deduction occurs should be this season and no later. With what you're advocating, you may as well just implement an automatic relegation and save everyone a lot of wasted time.

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Has Derby yet produced accounts yet? 

If I fail to submit my self assesment tax return on time I receive a fine, which escalates the longer I delay. I think I'm right in saying (because I've always submitted and paid on time) that any tax due can have a penalty applied depending how long payment is delayed. 

Something along these lines would sort clubs out in terms of submitting accounts with a sliding scale of points deductions for delayed submission of accounts. 

On that basis Derby would likely be in the Conference next season! 

I'm led to believe that a club doesn't have to submit accounts after going into administration? I could be wrong on that though.
P&S submissions would still be due for all relevant periods so it's not as if we can escape punishment by hiding accounts... they even saw provisional accounts before we went into administration anyway.
Don't forget, the delay in submitting the accounts was because of the ongoing charge, appeal, and then subsequent discussions to produce a set of accounts both the club and EFL were happy with.

[chinapig]

34 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

You didn't say Wigan's appeal was a disgrace, yet their justification of the Covid impact was even weaker than ours.

Wasn't Wigan's appeal essentially that they had been screwed by a crap owner who put them in administration for his own purposes so they should be let off or am I misremembering?

More a case of feeble grounds for appeal than a disgrace perhaps, though I don't recall if there was any attempt to cook the books admittedly.

[chinapig]

41 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Don't forget, the delay in submitting the accounts was because of the ongoing charge, appeal, and then subsequent discussions to produce a set of accounts both the club and EFL were happy with.

Iirc the EFL said the revised accounts were submitted within the agreed, slightly extended, deadline.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, chinapig said:

Wasn't Wigan's appeal essentially that they had been screwed by a crap owner who put them in administration for his own purposes so they should be let off or am I misremembering?

More a case of feeble grounds for appeal than a disgrace perhaps, though I don't recall if there was any attempt to cook the books admittedly.

With Wigan yeah feeble excuse, justice seemed to have been done in the end. Having said that there were for a time wild rumours about betting in the Far East being tied to it somehow. That said on the evidence, it wasn't force majeure. Don't think the final conclusion of those claims ever got reported on.

[Mr Popodopolous]

45 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I think you're being a bit harsh by calling it a disgrace. Based on the discussions we've had on the subject, you must surely concede that there is some merit to the appeal. You didn't say Wigan's appeal was a disgrace, yet their justification of the Covid impact was even weaker than ours.

The season the P&S deduction occurs should be this season and no later. With what you're advocating, you may as well just implement an automatic relegation and save everyone a lot of wasted time.

In truth, the context in which I called, maybe called rather than call - it a disgrace was that it was/is just yet another attempt to wriggle off the hook. Definitely a degree of exasperation, final straw etc.

Some merit? I'm unsure either way, £20m of income from say mid March 2020 to end of June 2020 is a chunk for sure but then didn't 8k season ticket holders leave cash in the club? Plus turning down bids for Buchanan and potentially Lawrence this summer- Rooney declaring that the latter not for sale at any price in August.

Strikes me that Mel was maybe trying to hang on for a while and the date of administration was fairly opportunistic.

A couple of weeks post the summer window  "Oh, can't sell players for 15 weeks now. Ample time to find a buyer". Whereas had administrators arrived in the summer, players surely would've been sold.

Would the losses not to an extent also be offset by the fact that HMRC and other debts were racking up, instalments defaulted on, zero cash to Cocu yet you said. MSD support. All that makes me think that the running costs- that's not just wages but running costs including these, everything- of the group aren't all that low.

Wigan's case in hindsight was without merit, foundation etc. However they also (as far as I recall anyway) didn't seriously and persistently tried to swerve the regs.

Yeah ultimately agreed, although it was a creative idea that covered a fair few bases perhaps.

On a wider note I still like the idea of future financial information, combined with soft sanctions perhaps including regular checks and the projections in March bringing about the deduction for a club in that particular season. Easier now given the fixed asset loophole has gone and the amortisation one should be tidied up.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Report on Derby- John Percy.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/10/14/special-report-inside-derby-countys-desperate-battle-survival/

There is a segment from the article that causes a bit of concern- the EFL should have expected dirty tricks.

Quote

Derby’s long-running row with the EFL could be pivotal to a sale. The feud was reignited earlier this week after Quantuma lodged an appeal against the club’s 12-point deduction for going into administration.

After receiving legal advice from sports lawyer Nick De Marco, Quantuma are arguing that the punishment is unreasonable due to the impact of Covid-19 on finances.

However, the EFL is said to be shocked at Derby’s appeal as it believes the club’s financial problems clearly pre-date Covid.  

There are also suspicions from rival clubs that it is an attempt to reduce the nine-point deduction for historical financial breaches which is also hanging over the club.

Wigan’s own appeal over the punishment for administration was rejected last August, and Derby’s case will be heard by a disciplinary commission within a month.

They don't learn- the EFL should have been prepared for something like this and should seek to crush Derby in all honesty, hammer them from all angles. Crush the bastards.

No surprise to see that pos representing them too.

They are under embargo for many reasons, until no accounts at CH these remain- new owners have FFP maybe to deal with, or a 2 year embargo mooted in lieu of an agreed business plan as well as the accounts to the EFL, the P&S reasons, HMRC- the EFL need to show no mercy and give no quarter to such a horrible club with entitled fans.

If the stadium goes back significantly under value, dig in over that- Derby seem to have declared war on the EFL, it's about time the EFL and rival clubs went at Derby with everything and do so until such time as their horrible entitled club learn some humility.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Don’t they have the option to add points on also if the Club don’t work with the EFL.  They can also save points for co-operation.

If true, I’d just cancel their fixtures now.  Had enough of this crap.  They cheated, they know they cheated.

[chinapig]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Don’t they have the option to add points on also if the Club don’t work with the EFL.  They can also save points for co-operation.

If true, I’d just cancel their fixtures now.  Had enough of this crap.  They cheated, they know they cheated.

The courts would regard them as vexatious litigants and bar then from further actions. Sadly the EFL has no such authority and wouldn't have the guts to use it if it did.

Weak and naive are two words that come to mind. Let's hope Tracey Crouch gets the external regulator she wants.

Edited October 14, 2021 by chinapig

[redsquirrel]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Don’t they have the option to add points on also if the Club don’t work with the EFL.  They can also save points for co-operation.

If true, I’d just cancel their fixtures now.  Had enough of this crap.  They cheated, they know they cheated.

and they been cheating for a while, give them the option of 12 points deducted for the next 3 seasons or 18 for 2

[Mr Popodopolous]

23 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The courts would regard them as vexatious litigants and bar then from further actions. Sadly the EFL has no such authority and wouldn't have the guts to use it if it did.

Weak and naive are two words that come to mind. Let's hope Tracey Crouch gets the external regulator she wants.

Is this correct? EFL regs contain an agreement to arbitrate and seem to basically forbid court action as part of their terms of membership. You could go to court but you cannot participate in the EFL.

Only remedies appear to be Sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act.

What would happen if all 23 clubs collectively refused to play them?

On another note, surely it is up to the clubs and the League ultimately on 

@Davefevs  I thought Chansiri was bad with his "Oh? I thought it could be done" but he's got nothing and I mean nothing on these *******. Tbh comparing the two his crimes are very, very small beer. Tbh Harvey seemed awfully accommodating to him so I can even see why he thought it to an extent.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Is this correct? EFL regs are an agreement to arbitrate and seem to basically forbid court action as part of their terms of membership.

What would happen if all 23 clubs collectively refused to play them?

@Davefevs  I thought Chansiri was bad but he's got nothing and I mean nothing on these *******.

I was simply making a comparison between the EFL's naivety and weakness and how the courts treat parties who are taking the piss and wasting the courts' time. Not suggesting clubs could take court action.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I was simply making a comparison between the EFL's naivety and weakness and how the courts treat parties who are taking the piss and wasting the courts' time. Not suggesting clubs could take court action.

Oh okay, thanks- got mixed up- I assumed you meant the EFL would have been deemed the vexatious litigants by a court. I'm not sure any provision exists in EFL regs sadly but could be wrong.

They have to prove it was the sole cause, the burden of proof lies with the club so...

Edited October 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

That's a laugh, Derby fans thinking I'm ill-informed on their issue- not read a fans forum with such an unwarranted sense of entitlement and persecution complex about such issues...

Some poor sap hoped that they would be signing Adam Armstrong this summer- I mean really!? Maybe it was saps.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[supercidered]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That's a laugh, Derby fans thinking I'm ill-informed on their issue- not read a fans forum with such an unwarranted sense of entitlement and persecution complex about such issues...

Some poor saps thought they would be signing Adam Armstrong this summer- I mean really!?

Maybe they got him mixed up with Seth Armstrong.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, supercidered said:

Maybe they got him mixed up with Seth Armstrong.

More chance of signing Neil Armstrong...

What stuns me though is a) They thought the EFL would allow them to turn on the spending taps this summer again given their likely FFP position b) The lack of accounts c) The hit to income for all combined with the continuing need to comply with point a. I mean wow.

Some of this thread makes for funny reading now.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/37431-summer-2021-transfer-window-suggestion-thread/#comments

Edited October 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Real Mad Red]

At least Neil Armstrong is a high flyer unlike WRDC, my Derby season ticket colleague absolutely refuses to talk about it, he fears the worst.

[chinapig]

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That's a laugh, Derby fans thinking I'm ill-informed on their issue- not read a fans forum with such an unwarranted sense of entitlement and persecution complex about such issues...

Some poor sap hoped that they would be signing Adam Armstrong this summer- I mean really!? Maybe it was saps.

In fairness if we were in the same boat I suspect most of our fans wouldn't bother to inform themselves on the numbers or the regulations. After all we still have some who insist Steve uses P&S as an excuse not to spend money.

What you tend to get is a majority arguing on emotional grounds, which is not unique to Derby fans. I may think @AnotherDerbyFanfalls into motivated reasoning but at least they examine the numbers and regs to make their case, which I can respect 

Edited October 14, 2021 by chinapig

[Mr Popodopolous]

I don't think they'll go bust- they strike me as too lucky and yes he was, as high as one can get!

A good few years of suffering in the lower Leagues would be more than satisfactory however. A bonus of a good firesale in Jan would be no bad thing either. A 2 year business plan or embargo would be welcome.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

The rot runs deep though, you only have to read this Supporters Trust meeting with the EFL and some of the questions.

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/efl-response-to-ramstrust/

Okay on one level, fair- a break-even in cashflow, perhaps even a positive cash-flow naturally generated could be one good way forward. However querying the regulations they tried to swerve is also a bit rich.

EFL's response is spot on.

As it is with this.

As it is with this.

They're either grossly entitled or hard of thinking some of them.

Most of these questions are stupid and whether subconciously or otherwise, contain more than a little undercurrent of special pleading.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

5 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

To keep things simple, only Bielik, Bird, Knight, Sibley and Jozwiak are currently contacted beyond the end of the season

That will make complying with League One FFP easier!

 

5 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

you must surely concede that there is some merit to the appeal

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.

 

5 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I'm led to believe that a club doesn't have to submit accounts after going into administration?

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.

 

5 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

the delay in submitting the accounts was because of the ongoing charge

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 ...

Edited October 14, 2021 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

Edit. Double post, correct one below.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Edit. Just venting.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Quick question @Hxj thought you might have some ideas.

Has it yet reached a point where the EFL, perhaps lobbied by a majority of rival clubs can look at Derby and their continued League membership?

Just wondering where the limits are, what the minimum criteria before looking into getting rid, suspending membership or not allocating fixtures? I struggle to see that the EFL or many if any rival clubs will have any patience left given that the administration team appear to be carrying on where the old regime left off.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Has it yet reached a point where the EFL, perhaps lobbied by a majority of rival clubs can look at Derby and their continued League membership?

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.