Derby County

[Hxj]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That’s a lot of money for a League One club.

Ipswich went for £40 million including all the debt and a stadium.

I wonder what SL would accept for a Championship club?

Edited November 12, 2021 by Hxj

[slartibartfast]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

 

I wonder what SL would accept for a Championship club?

Don't know.......but he'd better hurry up if he want's top dollar !

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

Ipswich went for £40 million including all the debt and a stadium.

I wonder what SL would accept for a Championship club?

The link above reckoned 30m but what's 10m between friends. The American buyer surely knows he is overpaying at the numbers discussed just to clear the debt of the FC. If he wants a football club there are quite a few that offer better value and a stadium. 

Average attendance this season is about 19500, lord knows what it will be in L1.  

City are a different kettle of fish. Its not just Bristol City FC, its Bristol Sport (Rugby/Basketball etc etc). Yes the stadium is detached but working on the notion that Derby is 70m to tie up the club. Bristol Sport with a top Rugby club and a Prem ready stadium has a value of 210m

[Waconda]

Didn't realise how much of a state they are in.

They better hope this American guy is legit.

[East Londoner]

Yes i know this is a random point, i was out waking along the Thames path last Saturday and passed the doubletree hotel at Canary Wharf just as Derby’s squad were preparing to leave. Now if their financial position is to be believed would they be paying to stay in a relatively expensive hotel rather than just a couple of hours on the coach to save money?

[View from the Dolman]

4 minutes ago, East Londoner said:

Yes i know this is a random point, i was out waking along the Thames path last Saturday and passed the doubletree hotel at Canary Wharf just as Derby’s squad were preparing to leave. Now if their financial position is to be believed would they be paying to stay in a relatively expensive hotel rather than just a couple of hours on the coach to save money?

If I remember correctly, there were reports that Rooney was paying for team hotels out of his own pocket to ensure they had the required levels of preparation. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, East Londoner said:

Yes i know this is a random point, i was out waking along the Thames path last Saturday and passed the doubletree hotel at Canary Wharf just as Derby’s squad were preparing to leave. Now if their financial position is to be believed would they be paying to stay in a relatively expensive hotel rather than just a couple of hours on the coach to save money?

My understanding is that they despite their position haven't necessarily been skimping on the football side. So that figures.

They also intend or Quantama have said it anyway, to keep the Category A academy. That's £5-6m a season isn't it? Okay maybe a bit less but cheap it isn't.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

 

 

Anyone who thinks that WRDC will not pay for Mel Morris's misdeeds hasn't been watching how business works in other walks of life. These people are adept at setting up Companies to shelter them from the consequences of their actions, look at Philip Green as one high profile case. While the Government refuse to tighten and change the rules it will always be thus.

Limited liability, all comes back to that?

The fact that a company controls the stadium company and the fact that the club is under Sevco 5112 and then the club- not Gellaw Newco 202 and 204 but the rest...a bit like a rubix cube?

Club group

Club-Sevco 5112 (also included in the latter is Club DCFC, Derby County FC Academy, Stadia DCFC)- all under Gellaw Newco 203. Only then does Mel Morris come into it. The below is separate to the club group etc.

Stadium group

Gellaw Newco 202-company who purchased Pride Park.

Controlled by Mel? Well yes but no.

Gellaw Newco 204. This controls the company.

Then and only then does Mel kick in, as the controlling party of Gellaw Newco 204.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, Hxj said:

We will get the real figures shortly.

My back of envelope numbers are:

MSD £20 million

Bank £3 million

HMRC £25 million

Football Creditors £20 million

Mel Morris Nil

Others £5 million

So £70-£75 million.

If HMRC follow their published practice all will need to be paid in full to avoid a liquidation.

So an investment of around £100 million is required to pay the debts and run the club through to the end of the 2022/23 season.

Although a thread and your work is very good, has suggested £20-25m.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38632-a-question-of-debt/

Suggestions that the MSD debt belongs to Mel and at least a 50% haircut on the HMRC debt.

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

It's the back tracking on the appeal that frustrates me. Days to go until the hearing and not much longer until a verdict would have been announced... it just seems really odd. 
I can understand the P&S penalty being accepted just to speed things up. No takeover was going to happen until that was resolved so it was either accept it (whether we believed we were right or wrong) or let things drag on, This is where I would critisise the EFL for not cooperating enough to expedite a fair trial (given no side was willing to budge from their stance)

IIRC even though they were separate issues, wasn't it rumoured that the administrators were trying to link the two as part of negotiations. Perhaps the EFL in turn suggested that this issue would be on the back burner somewhat until the P&S issue was resolved? That puts serious time pressure on the sale timeliness.

A fair trial on P&S you mean? Unsure that the EFL have all of the information save for revised accounts until 2018.

9 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I can't remember which accounts I based it off, but I had Reading down as a £32m overspend in the 3 years to 2020, then similar again for the 4 years to 2021.

I want to see consistency in penalty between Derby and Reading. Not something like the suspended 3 points for paying 1 months wages late, then SWFC get the same for several months wages.

I tried some calculations a while back, over on the FFP thread. Guesswork of course but I estimated the cost of reduced wages (Salary sport) and reduced amortisation (Transfermarkt) from those who left in Summer 2020. Not the most reliable sources of course...the amortisation reductions will have helped but surely not by that much. Might return to them at some point.

I assume that the EFL would be pushing for a full 12 pts vs Reading at an IDC if not for the negotiations.

A difference of course is that this proposed Derby one would be a final settlement, the Reading one is or will still be an ongoing matter.

Think Sheffield Wednesday got off lightly there. Think it was - 6 but it halves around December/January. Should have been a deduction with a further tranche suspended. IMO it should be 1 month overdue or incorrect =3 pts.

[Hxj]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Although a thread and your work is very good, has suggested £20-25m.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38632-a-question-of-debt/

Suggestions that the MSD debt belongs to Mel and at least a 50% haircut on the HMRC debt.

If it was a £20 million problem it would have been sorted by now.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, Hxj said:

If it was a £20 million problem it would have been sorted by now.

Am inclined to agree tbh- just posting a counterview.

Also to add to your other points.

1. Is it clear, as in crystal clear that the ICAEW review was relating to Derby/the group? Or could it just have been from Smith Cooper in general but not necessarily Derby in particular- they after all will audit for many firms and there will be plenty of audit staff other than the Delves who work for/worked for Smith Cooper too. It didn't explicitly state Derby/Gellaw Newco 203 whoever in the IDC bit as far as I could see. Or another firm who Smith Cooper happen to audit for, or other auditors within the organisation etc.
2. Agree totally- without the finalised and agreed accounts you cannot have the hearings. Think how long the process has taken- then imagine it for the revised accounts in the 3 years to 2018 and then a fresh investigation with the possibility of charges for and an investigation into the 3 years to 2019- and possibly beyond! Just how long would that take to resolve- and time perhaps is not on Derby's side, it could literally drag on for years if the EFL went down the road of an IDC for each relevant 3 year period, with scope for appeals etc- and an embargo of some kind would remain in play all the while.

EFL have all the time in the world in a sense- but do Derby.

Also @AnotherDerbyFan one thing I forgot to add earlier.

I think the EFL won the right so to speak, when they won their appeal- the amortisation was deemed non-compliant with FRS 102 therefore the order to restate- in a sense they perhaps won the right to decide which format was appropriate and if not finalised as @Hxj then they can't make an FFP assessment and as such the embargo/Regulation 16.20 remains in order to stop the club- or in fact if any other club in this position, any club- from gaining an unfair advantage out of the impasse.

ie Embargo eased, sign players in the interim and then find that there is a significant case to answer- whereas imposition of a budget prevents this from being the case.

Edited November 13, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just browsing the Derby forum earlier and a few random thoughts on the business plan bit.

1) That could depend on which type of business plan? Because a situation where a Championship club goes into administration and are considered in breach of FFP at the same time, it's unprecedented.

Think Wigan and Bolton were okay for FFP, while Birmingham, Reading and Sheffield Wednesday were/are solvent or not in administration at least. One or the other in all those cases is my basic point.

2) Seen some suggestions that the Business Plan is something that is loosely drawn up and forgotten about. Birmingham fans would declare otherwise, I remember reading reports that they were struggling to renew Michael Morrison and even more surprisingly, youth players.

Albeit this was prior to their sanction, but the EFL withdrawal of consent for Marriott contract renewal/extension shows that yes they can monitor clubs heavily and act where required. Again this is pre any possible sanction so may differ.

3) Che Adams. I think the EFL with the benefit of hindsight messed up a bit originally back in 2018 and 2019. They perhaps should have tied some automatic deduction to a breach of the business plan. That would be in addition to any charges for failing FFP and punishment therein.

4) The case itself was an interesting and potentially significant one. Though the original hearing basically exonerated Birmingham, the League Arbitration Panel said they were guilty but no deduction. However the fact it was upheld in a sense, means that FFP Business Plans now potentially are deemed absolute obligations as opposed to best endeavours.

Think the main point of their appeal was to gain clarity on this bit and perhaps the +3 part of the proposed sanctions for Derby and Reading would be a deduction that automatically kick in if a business plan is breached. That's in addition to additional charges, a downpayment perhaps.

Should add too, Che Adams based on the LAP bit and possibly the IDC, the bid that Birmingham rejected was not far off that of what he went for in the end though specific numbers were not quoted.

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://the72.co.uk/255427/nixon-reveals-further-details-about-derby-countys-efl-punishment-rams-got-off-lightly/

If it has truth, it seems that the alternative to the EFL's proposed settlement was to go for 17 points. Presumably that could cover breaches within the entire period.

Remember too that the Embargo would remain on the table during proceedings...but remember too that you never know with Independent Panels. 

Because restatement of 2015/16 to 2017/18 would necessitate restatement of any that used the Derby amortisation policy.

It's a good use of leverage by the EFL if true. "Accept or face consequences of ongoing proceedings, that include current Embargo continuing etc".

[Mr Popodopolous]

I thought I would have a look again at Derby and their possible losses- and I must say some very interesting posts by Ghost of Clough over on their site, with estimates for seasons of breaches using different methods.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38482-derby-to-fight-12-point-deduction-according-to-nixon/page/134/#comment-2232005

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38482-derby-to-fight-12-point-deduction-according-to-nixon/page/135/#comment-2232039

Would be interesting to see how they compare to the figures posted by @AnotherDerbyFan around January-February 2021.  All good stuff.

Then there's the figures lifted from the EFL Written Reasons from the original case...I'm fairly sure that the Mel Morris £4m or 4 points thing to 2018 was roughly in line with one of my earlier estimates based on the changes in amortisation method.

On a crude quick measurement, the period to 2018 has an additional based on this- and I'm going Straight Line not Straight Line with extension for the moment...

Add £21.38m to the P&S loss to 2018. That falls roughly within that bracket? 4 pts or £4m overspend IIRC, don't recall the precise number Mel Morris spoke of on Radio Derby.

All the same it equates to a 4 point deduction that either should have been applied to 2018/19 or perhaps in-season? My preference is always for in-season deductions wherever possible.

How that would have affected the figures to 2019, well who knows- but I assume that they would have got the Birmingham treatment of a target and business plan in 2018/19? To cover T +1 and T +2- ie 2018/19 and 2019/20 and as well as the deduction, they surely would have been significantly restricted?

Paragraphs 1, then into 2019 101 and 106 feel pertinent

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/202021/general-news-images/efl-v-derby-county--decision.pdf

Given that the adjusted loss falls from £37,717,000 to £37.1m to 2019, the 3 year one that is, this fall is suggested to be the compensation for Lampard and his team.

The £3.1m sensitivity in terms of rent is interesting, I wonder if that's been resolved yet.

Rough numbers...

Quote

2015/16- Deficit £15,271,000 using the Derby method, therefore a quick and crude add would be an FFP loss of £21,261,000 for the season.

2016/17- Deficit £13,407,000 using the Derby method, therefore a quick and crude add would be an FFP loss of £21,007,000 for the season.

2017/18- PROFIT £7,207,000 using the Derby method, therefore a quick and crude add would be an FFP swing of £7.75m and therefore it becomes a deficit of £543,000 for the season.

Yep, that's in the ballpark of the 4 pts or £4m that was referred to by Mel Morris. In the ballpark of my own calculations too some time ago.

To 2019 is perhaps more of an unknown.

£30.9m seems to be the starting point, based on the EFL written reasons using the Derby method. However add say £9-10m in transfer profits- their 2018 accounts said  in reference to 2019 figures, £12.8m book value departed for £11.7m fee in Post Balance Sheet Events for something similar and that swings back round....

...Then again based on this graph combined with the EFL figures the amortisation goes back up again- reduce the losses by say £10m due to transfer profits swinging round from a loss on disposal, but then add back in £9.53m in amortisation charges.

The problem comes with how to calculate the 3 years to 2019- I don't think you can just reset both of the two that precede it to £13m, I'd rather look at the aggregate of 2016/17 and 2017/18 and work from there. You're looking potentially at £29-30m FFP losses in 2018/19 alone. To reset BOTH 2016/17 and 2017/18 to £13m losses would mean a £25-26m FFP target for 2018/19 and I'm not sure about that. It lets a club off the hook quite a bit- the Birmingham one was easy, both exceed £13m, both reset to £13m...and make a £13m target to 2018/19 and 2019/20.

Whereas based on my rough calculations, T-1 and T-2 have an aggregate FFP loss of £21.55m. I don't think resetting both in that way to £13m is entirely appropriate. Not quite sure what is though! Resetting 2017/18 to £13m gives an additional £12.5m headroom in 2018/19 to the £13m target and given that it would be a loss of £21m or thereabouts for T-2 that just doesn't seem right. Surely if the aggregate itself falls below £26m there is a case to go with that.

That in turn can create a problem for 2019/20 and as it turned out, 2020/21 the combined average due to Covid...put another way if T-1 and T-2 aggregated exceeded £26m easy to reset, but not as easy as individually but below? Hard isn't it.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[keflav]

Derby Just been handed another 9 points deduction....

Derby County: Championship bottom club docked nine more points for accounting rule breaches - BBC Sport

 

[JamesBCFC]

Could Derby end this season with not just the lowest ever Premier League points tally, but Championship one too?

[Davefevs]

[Port Said Red]

23 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Could Derby end this season with not just the lowest ever Premier League points tally, but Championship one too?

Blackpool hold the record with 26, I think they will get more than 27 points from their remaining games.

[JamesBCFC]

9 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Blackpool hold the record with 26, I think they will get more than 27 points from their remaining games.

Will be quite funny if they manage it.

Googles showing Derby on -3 at the moment, so 30 needed to get past Blackpool

[TonyTonyTony]

When is the Reading points deduction decision due?

[Hxj]

Agreed decision here, worth a read:

efl-v-dcfc-agreed-decision-approved-for-publication-15-november-2021.pdf

Press release:

EFL statement: Derby County - News - EFL Official Website

 

[ExiledAjax]

I saw this quote from the Admins. Carl Jackson, a joint administrator for Derby, said: “This has been a difficult matter to navigate bearing in mind the various issues concerned. Whilst point deductions are never ideal for any club, it was critical to the club’s future that all matters were concluded between the EFL and the club in relation to historical issues. This conclusion allows us to proceed with our restructuring strategy for the club with prospective interested parties.”

The bit in bold suggests to me that this has been settled in large part because potential buyers have been insisting on the issue being concluded. They want to buy with certainty, and don't want to take on the appeal and surrounding legislation. They also presumably don't want to pay for it either. Get it finished, pay the lawyers and accountants, stick an indemnity for future issues in the SPA, and get the deal done.

[Loco Rojo]

What a farce to draw this out. Feel so sorry for Wycombe. 

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

Whilst points deductions are never ideal...

[Banjo Red]

2 minutes ago, Loco Rojo said:

What a farce to draw this out. Feel so sorry for Wycombe. 

Hope they get promoted screw Derby.

17 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

When is the Reading points deduction decision due?

Was going to ask the same thing due to Carroll signing for them.

[Hxj]

24 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

proceed with our restructuring strategy for the club with prospective interested parties.

That's an interesting word choice - not 'with the interested parties.'

Does this mean that someone hasn't actually confirmed interest yet?

[Loco Rojo]

21 minutes ago, Banjo Red said:

Hope they get promoted screw Derby.

Was going to ask the same thing due to Carroll signing for them.

I wonder if they have any legal case to pursue? They must have lost earnings by dropping to L1 even if they do come straight back up.

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I saw this quote from the Admins. Carl Jackson, a joint administrator for Derby, said: “This has been a difficult matter to navigate bearing in mind the various issues concerned. Whilst point deductions are never ideal for any club, it was critical to the club’s future that all matters were concluded between the EFL and the club in relation to historical issues. This conclusion allows us to proceed with our restructuring strategy for the club with prospective interested parties.”

The bit in bold suggests to me that this has been settled in large part because potential buyers have been insisting on the issue being concluded. They want to buy with certainty, and don't want to take on the appeal and surrounding legislation. They also presumably don't want to pay for it either. Get it finished, pay the lawyers and accountants, stick an indemnity for future issues in the SPA, and get the deal done.

And the prospective buyers can now offer to buy at a Lg1 price!

[Davefevs]

38 minutes ago, Hxj said:

That's an interesting word choice - not 'with the interested parties.'

Does this mean that someone hasn't actually confirmed interest yet?

Pretty standard to be bullish about interested parties at the start of Administration, but somehow the early runner always seems to fall out.  Is Kirchner still interested….lot of money for a Lg1 club!