Derby County

[REDOXO]

21 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Putting their foot down and the first step in throwing them out of the league has been taken,

Reads as if any patients the efl had has now gone 

Derby are the patient and they are on life support. 

[Monkeh]

2 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Derby are the patient and they are on life support. 

Time to turn it off and unplug them 

[East Londoner]

1 hour ago, Leveller said:

I suspect they’ve been given time because there was a real prospect of a buyer - which there probably wasn’t with the likes of Bury. A big name club is simply a more saleable asset with more prospect of becoming a going concern.

Wider point I’m making though is nothing is going to change until one of the so called bigger clubs goes pop. Otherwise it’ll be another name going into administration and on life support 

It’s easy for the bigger clubs to ignore what happened to Bury but not so easy if it’s Derby 

Edited June 12, 2022 by East Londoner

[Mr Popodopolous]

I'm surprised Quantuma (Saturday statement) and the EFL (today) appear to work weekends! 

That statement is fairly strong and one of the stronger ones yet.  I wonder if there is a hard deadline attached...in theory Derby could start 2022/23 in administration if as I said the other day they had a cash breakeven budget and also if required, proof of to see out the season...or in this case as a club can only be in administration for 18 months, mid-late March 2023 going by that could be a final deadline.

The reference to the interests of the EFL and integrity of the competition for the first time- it has been an elephant in the room for a while now but it has woken up, trumpeted!

And

From the statement...bit about negotiating directly in relation to the transfer of the Golden Share also feels fairly unprecedented!

Edited June 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

A quick look at their forum reveals a predictable "EFL are picking on us" response. Including a demand for the EFL to be disbanded and replaced by a more competent body.

So, for the benefit of any Derby fans visiting, the EFL is not some separate body. Here's a clue: EFL stands for English Football League i.e. the 72 clubs, of which you are a member, for the time being at least. So it probably won't help Derby to disband the competition.

 

[BTRFTG]

Favours given Derby simply send the message that if one is to gamble and go bust, do it large.

If the EFL bend over backwards to allow clubs to retain their membership after entering administration, dumping their debt on the non-footballing suckers who've supported them, only to emerge with a clean slate , why go under for £1m? Why not make it £10m or £50m or £100m if the ultimate outcome is the same? Makes a whole mockery of FFP & P&S.

The EFL MUST continue to punish Derby for every advantage they might gain against their peers should they survive this. Say HMRC let Derby off £20m of debt; the EFL should have a rolling programme to deduct from their distributions to Derby  an equivalent amount and distribute that amongst other members. 

[BTRFTG]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm surprised Quantuma (Saturday statement) and the EFL (today) appear to work weekends! 

That statement is fairly strong and one of the stronger ones yet.  I wonder if there is a hard deadline attached...in theory Derby could start 2022/23 in administration if as I said the other day they had a cash breakeven budget and also if required, proof of to see out the season...or in this case as a club can only be in administration for 18 months, mid-late March 2023 going by that could be a final deadline.

If the administrators are not allowed to sign players whilst the club remains in administration how might Derby start the season with but 5 players under contract?

[BTRFTG]

2 minutes ago, chinapig said:

A quick look at their forum reveals a predictable "EFL are picking on us" response. Including a demand for the EFL to be disbanded and replaced by a more competent body.

So, for the benefit of any Derby fans visiting, the EFL is not some separate body. Here's a clue: EFL stands for English Football League i.e. the 72 clubs, of which you are a member, for the time being at least. So it probably won't help Derby to disband the competition.

 

Technically, Derby are no longer a member post entering administration.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

If the administrators are not allowed to sign players whilst the club remains in administration how might Derby start the season with but 5 players under contract?

This is the bit I keep forgetting but yes- I suppose in the event that they have some scholars and youth players they can cobble something together- depends who is still in contract I guess.

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Technically, Derby are no longer a member post entering administration.

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.

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Including a demand for the EFL to be disbanded and replaced by a more competent body.

Sunday boozing isn't always wise.

[BTRFTG]

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.

[chinapig]

41 minutes ago, chinapig said:

A quick look at their forum reveals a predictable "EFL are picking on us" response. Including a demand for the EFL to be disbanded and replaced by a more competent body.

So, for the benefit of any Derby fans visiting, the EFL is not some separate body. Here's a clue: EFL stands for English Football League i.e. the 72 clubs, of which you are a member, for the time being at least. So it probably won't help Derby to disband the competition.

 

I do one poster a disservice though:

I simply don't get the axe to grind stuff with the EFL so I'm not on the same page; probably gives me company only with a very small minority of Derby fans but there we have it. The problems are and were Mel Morris, and since he left, the administrators, admins that haven't been up to much; opinion formulated there on the basis that results speak louder than words and the results are and remain poor. Creating bogeymen of the EFL, I can understand the emotion behind it, but I think it is precisely that, emotion. Think their Statement today is wholly necessary, putting feet to the fire is vital at some point.

Well yes, quite.

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

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.

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.

[chinapig]

Some new points from Sky here:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11696/12632554/derby-county-takeover-several-businesspeople-ready-to-step-in-to-prevent-liquidation

This bit is surprising. Back-up funding from whom?

Sky Sports News has been told that while the priority is to complete a club takeover long before the fixtures are released, there is the potential for "back-up" funding to be made available for Derby to assemble a squad and fulfil their fixtures should that process be delayed.

[Mr Popodopolous]

27 minutes ago, chinapig said:

This bit is surprising. Back-up funding from whom?

Sky Sports News has been told that while the priority is to complete a club takeover long before the fixtures are released, there is the potential for "back-up" funding to be made available for Derby to assemble a squad and fulfil their fixtures should that process be delayed.

My guess would be MSD. Although they should have to fall back on youth and scholars before being allowed to make any signings whatsoever while in admin IMO. If they have say 23 of first team, youth and scholars then no new signings required!

This Derby fan would like special treatment, of course.

Quote

No, but they could vary their rules to make it easier for find a buyer.

They could renew the golden share with football creditors not getting 100%. They could allow a takeover at less than 25% for the unsecured creditors without a points deduction. They could allow just a 1 year stadium deal. They could impose a business plan which allowed the club to be competitive. They remove the embargo so we can at least renew contracts to keep some value in the club

But they won't. 

Edited June 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

My guess would be MSD. Although they should have to fall back on youth and scholars before being allowed to make any signings whatsoever while in admin IMO.

This Derby fan would like special treatment, of course.

 

If only the poster had written to the other 71 clubs before the EFL AGM. I'm sure they would have happily made wholesale changes to the rules they have abided by to give Derby an advantage from not abiding by them. Who could possibly object?

[REDOXO]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

My guess would be MSD. Although they should have to fall back on youth and scholars before being allowed to make any signings whatsoever while in admin IMO. If they have say 23 of them then no new signings required!

This Derby fan would like special treatment, of course.

 

There are some delusional people that go on that forum. 
 

The 71 other clubs are supposed to turn a blind eye to being cheated by an owner who has dropped the supporters in the worst possible mess and turn a blind eye to the rules that everyone else has to abide by! 
 

Founder members don’t you know!

The members bit we are aware of!!

[BTRFTG]

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.

[BTRFTG]

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.

[downendcity]

31 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

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.

Weren't Bolton allowed to postpone games at the start of the season over concerns for player welfare had they been forced to field a team of young players against seasoned senior pros?

[Lanterne Rouge]

3 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Weren't Bolton allowed to postpone games at the start of the season over concerns for player welfare had they been forced to field a team of young players against seasoned senior pros?

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.

[Monkeh]

Back up funding? Isn't third party investment against the rules 

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Favours given Derby simply send the message that if one is to gamble and go bust, do it large.

If the EFL bend over backwards to allow clubs to retain their membership after entering administration, dumping their debt on the non-footballing suckers who've supported them, only to emerge with a clean slate , why go under for £1m? Why not make it £10m or £50m or £100m if the ultimate outcome is the same? Makes a whole mockery of FFP & P&S.

The EFL MUST continue to punish Derby for every advantage they might gain against their peers should they survive this. Say HMRC let Derby off £20m of debt; the EFL should have a rolling programme to deduct from their distributions to Derby  an equivalent amount and distribute that amongst other members. 

[BTRFTG]

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....

[CyderInACan]

 

[Midred]

14 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

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....

And half time fags?

[Davefevs]

As per a post the other day, Nixon’s tweets have become more and more obvious that he’s pushing someone else’s agenda.

[exAtyeoMax]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

As per a post the other day, Nixon’s tweets have become more and more obvious that he’s pushing someone else’s agenda.

what do you mean?

[chinapig]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

As per a post the other day, Nixon’s tweets have become more and more obvious that he’s pushing someone else’s agenda.

He appears to be Kirchner's mouthpiece. Or at least he is very much taking his side. He's going to have egg on his face if Kirchner doesn't deliver the money allegedly held up in a European clearing bank by money laundering checks pdq.

[Jerseybean]

Mike Ashley mentioned here again. The saga goes on and on…..https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-takeover-mike-ashley-7198297