Derby County

[ExiledAjax]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I can say that in August/September 2020 not long after they took out a loan from MSD, they added Marshall and Byrne from Wigan, plus Jozwiak for a reported £4m fee. Though Bogle and Lowe sold.

They also turned down a bid for Buchanan in the summer from Nottingham Forest and reportedly Tom Lawrence although never found confirmation. The fact they're looking to accelerate loans or cash should surely count in the EFL's favour. I do know though that Rooney declared in the summer that Lawrence was not for sale at any price

And each of these, if proven to be true, would lessen the chance that it was "more likely than not" that Covid19 was solely the cause of administration. 

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One more bit, the "currency of a binding agreement". Any ideas?

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Club Income: In the event that a club suffers material adverse effects upon the loss of anticipated income streams which mean that it is unable to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due. This could only be grounds for appeal, however, if the loss occurs during the currency of a binding agreement (i.e. not upon expiry).

Not sure. It's weird phrasing, I'm not familiar with it. I think it is saying that the Club can only use a loss of anticipated income as grounds for appeal if the loss of that income happens during the term of the contract. So it limits the type of income loss that can be used in this way.

Essentially once a contract finishes, or before it begins, any losses of anticipated income that result therefrom cannot be used to claim that the Club cannot pay its debts.

So they can't claim that "we're only insolvent because we've not been paid under that contract that ended last year". Alternatively yes your example of future earnings not being realised because a contract falls through, yes I think that works.

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

And each of these, if proven to be true, would lessen the chance that it was "more likely than not" that Covid19 was solely the cause of administration. 

Not sure. It's weird phrasing, I'm not familiar with it. I think it is saying that the Club can only use a loss of anticipated income as grounds for appeal if the loss of that income happens during the term of the contract. So it limits the type of income loss that can be used in this way.

Essentially once a contract finishes, or before it begins, any losses of anticipated income that result therefrom cannot be used to claim that the Club cannot pay its debts.

So they can't claim that "we're only insolvent because we've not been paid under that contract that ended last year". Alternatively yes your example of future earnings not being realised because a contract falls through, yes I think that works.

Thanks once again.

Definitely right about weird phrasing, I did a Google search or two with speech marks, and the only place it comes up really was relates to the EFL and something else random/obscure.

Anything that weakens their case is positive IMO.

Because on a side note, away from legal wording etc aren't they arrogant! As a club, fanbase etc.

Variously on Twitter you will see claims that the EFL are biased against them, appearing in terms of refereeing calls.

Claims that there is a vendetta vs them, other claims that it's a dispute between two egos (Morris and Parry) endangering a founder club a fact I couldn't care less about, status of club isn't an issue is it.

I could go on but some of their stuff makes me want to...well it's worthy of the world's smallest violin. 

Maybe I'm harsh but they do very little to engender goodwill for themselves as a fanbase and club in this regard.

[CyderInACan]

29 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks once again.

Definitely right about weird phrasing, I did a Google search or two with speech marks, and the only place it comes up really was relates to the EFL and something else random/obscure.

Anything that weakens their case is positive IMO.

Because on a side note, away from legal wording etc aren't they arrogant! As a club, fanbase etc.

Variously on Twitter you will see claims that the EFL are biased against them, appearing in terms of refereeing calls.

Claims that there is a vendetta vs them, other claims that it's a dispute between two egos (Morris and Parry) endangering a founder club a fact I couldn't care less about, status of club isn't an issue is it.

I could go on but some of their stuff makes me want to...well it's worthy of the world's smallest violin. 

Maybe I'm harsh but they do very little to engender goodwill for themselves as a fanbase and club in this regard.

I always keep an eye on this fascinating thread even though some of the legal back and forths are possibly somewhat fanciful on both sides. The amount of obfuscation and lack of good will (as well as the absolute pisstake of the last few years ) from Derby obviously being a provocative factor. 

Bottom line for me. And everyone I would suggest. If Derby win this then football is f u k c e d. What’s the point any more. It’s bad enough with the absolute nonsense of parachute payments. But If you can sell your ground etc etc etc to yourself then we may as well just not f u k c ing bother. 

[ExiledAjax]

35 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks once again.

Definitely right about weird phrasing, I did a Google search or two with speech marks, and the only place it comes up really was relates to the EFL and something else random/obscure.

Anything that weakens their case is positive IMO.

Because on a side note, away from legal wording etc aren't they arrogant! As a club, fanbase etc.

Variously on Twitter you will see claims that the EFL are biased against them, appearing in terms of refereeing calls.

Claims that there is a vendetta vs them, other claims that it's a dispute between two egos (Morris and Parry) endangering a founder club a fact I couldn't care less about, status of club isn't an issue is it.

I could go on but some of their stuff makes me want to...well it's worthy of the world's smallest violin. 

Maybe I'm harsh but they do very little to engender goodwill for themselves as a fanbase and club in this regard.

Honestly I'm interested in it more from the legal side.

I've not had much interaction with Derby fans, and certainly don't engage them on Twitter.

Honestly, the only Derby fan I've ever met was on a mates stag do. The bloke mistook a bidet for a toilet and laid out a log that he then couldn't get rid of.

Take from that what you will.

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Honestly I'm interested in it more from the legal side.

I've not had much interaction with Derby fans, and certainly don't engage them on Twitter.

Honestly, the only Derby fan I've ever met was on a mates stag do. The bloke mistook a bidet for a toilet and laid out a log that he then couldn't get rid of.

Take from that what you will.

Looks like the EFL struggling to flush Derby down the toilet too.

Reminds me of Extras when Steven Merchant needed a whisk to break up a stubborn turd!

[1960maaan]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

needed a whisk to break up a stubborn turd!

Right there is an analogy for the EFL Vs Derby conundrum 

[fairweather]

42 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Honestly I'm interested in it more from the legal side.

I've not had much interaction with Derby fans, and certainly don't engage them on Twitter.

Honestly, the only Derby fan I've ever met was on a mates stag do. The bloke mistook a bidet for a toilet and laid out a log that he then couldn't get rid of.

Take from that what you will.

I want to go on stag do’s where we have bidets in our on-suites. Was it Nice or St Tropez!!!

[ExiledAjax]

8 hours ago, fairweather said:

I want to go on stag do’s where we have bidets in our on-suites. Was it Nice or St Tropez!!!

No, just Marbella.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Would be nice if there were a few chants aimed at Derby and their situation when we play them. Would be nice if fans of clubs in general did tbh.

One of our own is a generic chant with a generic base but I'll start.. 

Quote

"One of your own

He's of your own

The cheating b*****d

Mel's one of your own!"

All good fun...but with some accuracy as well! 

Or to present tense, line 3 could be "You're cheating b******s". It fits line by line.

Plus see, the old "We all hate Leeds" song. Modified. I believe that this was a song in the past.

Quote

"We all hate Rams and Rams and Rams and Rams and Rams and Rams.

"We all hate Rams and Rams and Rams and Rams and Rams and Rams.

We all hate cheating Rams!"

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

19 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Would be nice if there were a few chants aimed at Derby and their situation when we play them. Would be nice if fans of clubs in general did tbh.

One of our own is a generic chant with a generic base but I'll start.. 

"One of your own

He's of your own

The cheating b*****d

Mel's one of your own!"

All good fun...but with some accuracy as well! 

Or to present tense, line 3 could be "You're cheating b******s". It fits line by line.

"Force majeure, majuere;

Whatever will be, will be;

Accept your penalty; 

Force majeure, majuere."

To the tune of que sera, sera.

[BTRFTG]

21 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

So firstly, I find the use of the term "Force Majeure" slightly odd in itself. Generally the term is used in contractual relationships. It is a fancy term for 'acts of god' that happen out of the blue

In legal terms 'Force Majeure' and 'Acts Of God' are wholly distinct, they are NOT one and the same.

An 'Act of God' MUST BE a natural event (i.e. Earthquake, Volcanic Eruption, Coastal Flooding et al.) Force Majeure covers events over which man is either the cause or over which he has a significant degree of influence (i.e. Coup, Riot, Strike, War...)

Neither is an Epidemic or Pandemic an 'Act of God' as, as has demonstrated by mankind across the globe, there's quite a lot one can do to mitigate it's impacts. Not what God may do,  what mankind can do. In the case of Covid it's debatable whether the pandemic even falls into the 'Force Majeure' category for Championship clubs. Did the virus prevent them from carrying out their business? Well, no it didn't. Things were constrained but trade continued. Games played, players bought and sold, media contracts enforced. Temporary interruption to cashflow is something any company should have on its risk register, it's why successful companies hold reserves. Derby, should they claim they didn't because God denied them that opportunity, now that would be pushing credibility to its limits.

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, BTRFTG said:

In legal terms 'Force Majeure' and 'Acts Of God' are wholly distinct, they are NOT one and the same.

An 'Act of God' MUST BE a natural event (i.e. Earthquake, Volcanic Eruption, Coastal Flooding et al.) Force Majeure covers events over which man is either the cause or over which he has a significant degree of influence (i.e. Coup, Riot, Strike, War...)

Neither is an Epidemic or Pandemic an 'Act of God' as, as has demonstrated by mankind across the globe, there's quite a lot one can do to mitigate it's impacts. Not what God may do,  what mankind can do. In the case of Covid it's debatable whether the pandemic even falls into the 'Force Majeure' category for Championship clubs. Did the virus prevent them from carrying out their business? Well, no it didn't. Things were constrained but trade continued. Games played, players bought and sold, media contracts enforced. Temporary interruption to cashflow is something any company should have on its risk register, it's why successful companies hold reserves. Derby, should they claim they didn't because God denied them that opportunity, now that would be pushing credibility to its limits.

Agreed on the general legal distinction. I was keeping it simple for the purposes of the forum.

I think the EFL have tried to create their own definition of "Force Majeure" for the purposes of their regs. See reg 12.11 that @Mr Popodopolous quoted above. That's what is weird in the drafting. Under that 'new' definition I think Covid19 could be a "Force Majeure" event.

[Mr Popodopolous]

24 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

"Force majeure, majuere;

Whatever will be, will be;

Accept your penalty; 

Force majeure, majuere."

To the tune of que sera, sera.

Oh I like that!

Good to wind em up. God knows Morris and his antics have wound up everyone else in recent times.

[BTRFTG]

10 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Agreed on the general legal distinction. I was keeping it simple for the purposes of the forum.

I think the EFL have tried to create their own definition of "Force Majeure" for the purposes of their regs. See reg 12.11 that @Mr Popodopolous quoted above. That's what is weird in the drafting. Under that 'new' definition I think Covid19 could be a "Force Majeure" event.

I'd ask:

Was it within Derby's control not to spend far in excess of their income over a period lasting many years?

Is it a normal business risk that if  liabilities vastly exceed income and does do for a prolonged period there's a realistic chance of that business having to fold?

Had the material event (Covid) not occured would Derby most likely have discovered their 'shit or bust' strategy of reaching The Premier would fail yet again?

Is it unrealistic to claim that a future event, one claimed 'beyond their control' (sic), is just cause for Derby not to have published their accounts in the preceding three accounting periods?

I think most sane folks would conclude the answers to the above are 'Yes' in all circumstance. If so, Force Majeure it isn't.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Back on the topic briefly- any amusing songs will be good though.

I don't quite understand why the EFL need to settle as such- it is Derby who need to fulfil many obligations and the new owners have to agree with this.

I would be enforcing everything against them, for as long as possible to the furthest extent that the rules allow.

Quote

I'm less convinced the EFL are worried it would set a precedent of teams getting away without a  points deduction than I am that they simply can't be bothered to go through with the cost and effort of further appeals processes by other clubs, even futile ones.

This line makes little sense because the club covers the costs irrespective. The time and effort wrangling bit is a fair point, but the costs are correctly covered by the club who takes the action regardless of outcome. As it should be- the risk should lie with clubs when they make frivolous appeals.

I also don't see how this bit works, well I can on one level but the EFL have a whole array of conditions they can impose, the club have a list of conditions they need to satisfy...new owners shouldn't change the 2nd point.

Quote

I’d have thought  the EFL’s concern will lead them to settle with us to stop other clubs electing for admin

Derby surely are in no position to be setting terms of settlement? Section 3 of the Owners and Directors Test makes abundantly clear how it should proceed in terms of who should agree to what etc.

The EFL can set conditions as they see fit for new owners in order to ensure and monitor compliance with various conditions, okay that's a shortened version but it's quite clear.

Does this strike as special pleading? What he says goes against Paragraph 69 of the Wigan case.

Quote

I get the reasons for the 12 point penalty - it makes sense.  Under normal circumstances.  For us though, the core reason for appeal is COVID and the loss of 10s millions in potential income without which we'd likely not be in administration.  Not saying we'd be flush, but Mel certainly wouldn't have been in a position where he was required to provide all that additional funding.   Strikes me Maguire likes to point things out to the EFL just in case they haven't thought of it, or to give them another angle.  

With gates now open, crowds back and the revenue associated with that, I don't see why our case would set a precedent and open any flood gates.  If a club isn't yet in administration why should they suddenly file for it as a result of our appeal? If we were still in a lockdown, with zero additional funds for clubs, then different story. But we're not. 

Season tickets were announced late for Derby, wonder if that'll either be a factor for them or the EFL.

Paragraph 10, the Wigan case.

Paragraph 68 and 69- gives the idea of owners turning off the tap or running out of cash being a get out of jail card fairly short shrift.

Binding agreement bit...Nixon said Mel Morris was refusing to give adequate funding guarantees to the EFL back in July-August time. They were asking for proof of funds and he perhaps was not providing- had he done so they wouldn't be in administration this season would they!

TV revenue is a bit of an odd one, would have thought it would be something more specific to a club- TV revenue would likely tip multiple clubs into administration. Unless that's the point?

It is deemed a normal business risk though, owner funding ending for whatever reason- if we get the same panel I don't see how they can rule anything else.

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/1920-judgements/wigan-athletic-v-efl.pdf

Edited October 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[BTRFTG]

The EFL will move heaven and earth to ensure one of their more prestigious members are not overly inconvenienced. That's they way they operate irrespective of how badly they've behaved.

Contrast Macclesfield who were a conniving pain in the backside but had few friends in football's high places.

Edited October 25, 2021 by BTRFTG

[Mr Popodopolous]

51 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The EFL will move heaven and earth to ensure one of their more prestigious members are not overly inconvenienced. That's they way they operate irrespective of how badly they've behaved.

Contrast Macclesfield who were a conniving pain in the backside but had few friends in football's high places.

You say that but is it possible that they've antagonised the EFL once too often?

Hopefully dirty Derby will get the harshest punishments/treatment within the regulations possible.

Their Supporters Trust- normally those who are rightly feted in football- seem somewhat arrogant too.

Have a look at a few of the nonsense questions and points they raised to the EFL.

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/ramstrust-efl-questions/

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

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/ramstrust-meeting-with-the-efl/

The arrogance and ignorance, the special pleading- it really shines through.

It's especially ironic given that in 2011, the same organisation as part of fans representations to Parliament were calling for tighter regulations- possibly even the same guy as well, one Jim Wheeler! These are significantly tighter regulations but still they are not happy.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[The Original OTIB]

4 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The EFL will move heaven and earth to ensure one of their more prestigious members are not overly inconvenienced. That's they way they operate irrespective of how badly they've behaved.

Contrast Macclesfield who were a conniving pain in the backside but had few friends in football's high places.

Macc Lads are lovely, just ask Congleton:

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Edit.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

28 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

I'd ask:

Was it within Derby's control not to spend far in excess of their income over a period lasting many years? Yes

Is it a normal business risk that if  liabilities vastly exceed income and does do for a prolonged period there's a realistic chance of that business having to fold? Yes

Had the material event (Covid) not occured would Derby most likely have discovered their 'shit or bust' strategy of reaching The Premier would fail yet again? Unknown - we can presume yes, but there is a chance that it would not have failed.

Is it unrealistic to claim that a future event, one claimed 'beyond their control' (sic), is just cause for Derby not to have published their accounts in the preceding three accounting periods? Probably, although I am not an expert in the rules surrounding the publication of accounts.

I think most sane folks would conclude the answers to the above are 'Yes' in all circumstance. If so, Force Majeure it isn't.

I agree with your sentiments, and I am not arguing that Derby should get away with this. Far from it. I think they'd fail their appeal anyway - but they'd fail, using the same questions as you set out above, on the turning of the word "sole" in the regulations, rather than on whether or not the Covid19 pandemic was a FM event or not.

However, we aren't dealing with the common legal definition of FM that you helped to clarify. We are dealing with the EFL's own definition that they have set out in their private regulations, and which are being considered by their private arbitration panel. That definition is wider than the common one and states:

For the purposes of this Regulation 12, a ‘Force Majeure’ event shall be an event that, having regard to all of the circumstances, was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which the Club and/or Group Undertaking (as the case may be) could not reasonably be expected to have control and its Officials had used all due diligence to avoid the happening of that event.

In this definition the concept of FM is expanded to cover anything that happens and is outside of the Club's control. That analysis should be limited to the event itself, and should not have regard to its effects. The question is "Was the Covid19 pandemic caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which DCFC couldn't reasonably be expected to have had control?". You may argue that a pandemic's effects are a normal business risk, but the pandemic itself is not. @Mr Popodopolous do you know what they are actually alleging is the Force Majeure item? Is it the pandemic as an event or is it the fact they ran out of cash because of it?

There's no doubt that it is arguable either way, and as I said in my first post, I wish they'd not used the phrase 'Force Majeure' in the EFL regulations as it confuses matters somewhat. 

As I say, if I am wrong and the panel take your reading of it, well then the appeal fails. If I am right then I think it fails again as even if the pandemic is considered to be an FM event, it won't be seen to be the sole reason for administration.

[chinapig]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/oct/25/chris-kirchner-announces-interest-buying-derby

[054123]

I have no issue with the Carolina Panthers buying Derby, I’m just amazed at the reaction of some Derby fans. It’s like they accept no responsibility talks in the club for the last few years and this is just a vendetta by the league.

My heart bleeds for them.

[redsquirrel]

all that video needed was the little blue cars and a scoreboard,ah,the memories

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, 054123 said:

I have no issue with the Carolina Panthers buying Derby, I’m just amazed at the reaction of some Derby fans. It’s like they accept no responsibility talks in the club for the last few years and this is just a vendetta by the league.

My heart bleeds for them.

It's worse than that.

A substantial minority of Derby fans actively celebrated how they supposedly had one over the EFL in various ways.

People say think of the fans and in a lot of cases that's true.

In this instance? Certainly not.

As you say, the lack of acceptance, ownership from a fair few is incredible. Sure you've read the RamsTrust links I've posted.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

EFL need to keep the pressure on with their stipulations until such time as every last one is satisfied to the required standard. They are clear, the Owners and Directors Test Section 3.

[Davefevs]

53 minutes ago, chinapig said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/oct/25/chris-kirchner-announces-interest-buying-derby

I was gonna post earlier….”where are the new owner offers then”.  Looks like we have the first show of interest.  Will watch how it evolves.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Looks like Wycombe maybe pressing ahead with a claim!

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-wycombe-bill-kirchner-takeover-6112331

£6m! I applaud them, the stuff about £10m, £15m, £20m that was wrong- demonstrably incorrect. The £6m in lost TV/solidarity revenue or perhaps they may need to revise it down further- the gap between the two divisions as opposed to the gross amount- that is more realistic and should provide a better basis.

If as reported, Derby were using procedural defences to stall and push any possible order of restatement/punishment into 2021/22 then all good wishes to Wycombe tbh! Although it's possible that they have better grounds of a claim vs the EFL.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

34 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Looks like Wycombe maybe pressing ahead with a claim!

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-wycombe-bill-kirchner-takeover-6112331

£6m! I applaud them, the stuff about £10m, £15m, £20m that was wrong- demonstrably incorrect. The £6m in lost TV/solidarity revenue or perhaps they may need to revise it down further- the gap between the two divisions as opposed to the gross amount- that is more realistic and should provide a better basis.

If as reported, Derby were using procedural defences to stall and push any possible order of restatement/punishment into 2021/22 then all good wishes to Wycombe tbh! Although it's possible that they have better grounds of a claim vs the EFL.

£50m….does that mean the new owner taking on the debts….or does it mean a cut price stadium sell???

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

£50m….does that mean the new owner taking on the debts….or does it mean a cut price stadium sell???

Hard to say- Nixon is the source of the £50m, maybe taking on debts and if they get the stadium it'll be massively under £81m surely unless it'll be two separate transactions- ie £50m and then close to £81m for the ground.

Derby fans have seemed bullish in that regard, saying that the stadium sale back to the club via the new owner is nothing to do with the EFL- but I'm really not so sure. @Hxj mentioned a while ago about consolidation or deconsolidation- maybe the EFL should go down that road, given that one of the conditions that approved the sale and leaseback was IIRC linked to the ground not being a material part of operations.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Some of them, still bang on about potential loopholes.

One poster suggests that the prospective new owner could sponsor the ground for £10m a year via his company?? Nothing like at our level for Fair Value purposes.

They also go on to add, that Mel writing off debt could offer potential FFP expenditure headroom.

Not a chance the EFL accept the 2nd, and the 1st falls foul under the Fair Value regulations.The fact that Section 3 of the owners and directors test gives the EFL a) Regulation 16.20 and b) Perhaps to some extent carte blanche when it comes to ensuring compliance and monitoring compliance with varied regulations appears never to be mentioned on their site. Prospective owners have to agree to this Test, to pass it.