Derby County

[REDOXO]

36 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They are entirely frivolous then? Surely if Derby have withheld accounts which seems to at least have been possible there could be some merit- albeit mainly to the Wycombe one, because a deduction applied last season would have sent Derby down and the amount Wycombe have put in for is much easier to quantify?

If WHU were forced to settle with Sheffield Utd over Tevez then I don’t see either of those claims as frivolous. I’m not quite as up to date as a few, however with accounts still not available for last season Wycombe’s case could get stronger and Derby could very well be forced to settle out of court as well twice. 
 

The idea that anybody would brush off these claims as frivolous and at the same time offer money for the club is absurd. Simply defending the cases could cost millions and Gibson at least is in no mood to back off, particularly as Derby hijacked the signing of two players with money that notionally appeared due to the sale of the ground. Without going into the record books to much regarding when Waghorn scored some of his 30 goals for Derby they have a case just for that. Is it winnable? 50/50 and to what extent they can show damages is in the lap of the lawyers but certainly not frivolous. 
 

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by REDOXO

[BTRFTG]

3 hours ago, Hxj said:

Just to clarify (if it exists) it will be an offer to buy the club for £1 and the stadium company for £1 and to introduce sufficient capital by way of shareholding or loans to repay £54 million of debt. Imagine starting again with £54 million in loans!

This will result in MSD getting their, probably nearer £25 million now, £3 million in fees, £8 million in football creditors, leaving £18 million to HMRC.  Nothing to the rest of the creditors as the preference rules apply.  HMRC could agree to waive part of their debt to other creditors, but I don't see why they would.  Another issue, I couldn't see the non-preferential HMRC debt in the list, being Employer's NIC along with interest and late payment penalties on all the debt etc, so I suspect there could be another £6 million or so of unsecured creditors, only time will tell on that point.

Whilst the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims are entirely frivolous, they still need to be resolved.

In order to get a vote by 31 December, the paperwork needs to be finalised by 17 December.

 

When buying the stadium ownership holding doesn't that also trigger an SDLT liability circa £2.75m?

Also, I thought HMRC claimed they were owed £29.3m. If so, that's someway off what's left having paid off the preferential debt.

[East Londoner]

33 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

If WHU were forced to settle with Sheffield Utd over Tevez then I don’t see either of those claims as frivolous. I’m not quite as up to date as a few, however with accounts still not available for last season Wycombe’s case could get stronger and Derby could very well be forced to settle out of court as well twice. 
 

The idea that anybody would brush off these claims as frivolous and at the same time offer money for the club is absurd. Simply defending the cases could cost millions and Gibson at least is in no mood to back off, particularly as Derby hijacked the signing of two players with money that notionally appeared due to the sale of the ground. Without going into the record books to much regarding when Waghorn scored some of his 30 goals for Derby they have a case just for that. Is it winnable? 50/50 and to what extent they can show damages is in the lap of the lawyers but certainly not frivolous. 
 

 

But Tevez literally scored the goal that kept West Ham up that season. The Wycombe scenario is a little more cloudy as it was actually a Marlon Pack goal for Cardiff that kept Derby up. Although morally of course Derby should’ve been relegated having used every delaying tactic they could 

Theres no way Steve Gibson can prove Derby prevented his side getting promoted as all it cost them was a place in the semi final. And by that logic couldn’t Derby have sued QPR and Villa who beat them in play off finals having cheated on FFP?

Edited December 9, 2021 by East Londoner

[Hxj]

16 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

When buying the stadium ownership holding doesn't that also trigger an SDLT liability circa £2.75m?

Not my understanding if the company, rather than the asset, is bought.

17 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

HMRC claimed they were owed £29.3m

This appears to be as follows (all preferential):

The Football Club - £26.7 million

The Academy - £0.9 million

Stadia - £1.0 million

Club DCFC - £0.2 million

Sevco 5112 - £0.6 milllion

I'm surprised that no non-preferential debt appears.  Either it needs to be added or any payments to HMRC have been allocated against the non-preferential debt.

 

[REDOXO]

5 minutes ago, East Londoner said:

But Tevez literally scored the goal that kept West Ham up that season. The Wycombe scenario is a little more cloudy as it was actually a Marlon Pack goal for Cardiff that kept Derby up. Although morally of course Derby should’ve been relegated having used every delaying tactic they could 

Theres no way Steve Gibson can prove Derby prevented his side getting promoted as all it cost them was a place in the semi final. And by that logic couldn’t Derby have sued QPR and Villa who beat them in play off finals having cheated on FFP?

Anyone can sue anyone. If Someone doesn’t sue someone for something it doesn’t make a similar case unmakable. 
 

Wycombe and borough have two cases that are linked by one club but are different. 
 

Wycombe will argue the spending of Derby based upon money that was not within the rules gave Derby an unfair advantage that resulted in their relegation and as that margin is so fine yes they have a case. Of course they do. 
 

Middlesborough will argue that Derby signing of players in particular that they had agreements with gave Derby the goals they needed and robbed Borough of those same goals As you say the loss is not as easy to define. But that’s up to the lawyers. 
 

These things tend to not go all the way to a decision, but both Wycombe and Middlesborough are pressing forward with their suits so I guess they think they have a chance of getting a settlement. 

[cityexile]

4 hours ago, REDOXO said:

Anyone can sue anyone. If Someone doesn’t sue someone for something it doesn’t make a similar case unmakable. 
 

Wycombe and borough have two cases that are linked by one club but are different. 
 

Wycombe will argue the spending of Derby based upon money that was not within the rules gave Derby an unfair advantage that resulted in their relegation and as that margin is so fine yes they have a case. Of course they do. 
 

Middlesborough will argue that Derby signing of players in particular that they had agreements with gave Derby the goals they needed and robbed Borough of those same goals As you say the loss is not as easy to define. But that’s up to the lawyers. 
 

These things tend to not go all the way to a decision, but both Wycombe and Middlesborough are pressing forward with their suits so I guess they think they have a chance of getting a settlement. 

Lot of sympathy for Wycombe, but the ‘butterfly’ effect of proving ‘if this happened, this would have resulted’ is pretty hard to prove.

Lets take the very last day. My memory was it was a three way shoot out. Derby had to win against Wednesday to stay up and relegate both Wednesday and Wycombe. They did (3 -2?) then finished in the order Derby, Wycombe, Wednesday.

However, imagine the scenario in which Derby had already been deducted points. The last day would have felt very different. Derby already down, a Wednesday win and it is them that survive, not Wycombe. The odds on Wycombe on that last day were heavily always to finish third bottom assuming a winner in the other game.

I have always felt given an early points deduction for Derby, the balance of probability was that Wednesday, not Wycombe, would have stayed up.

edit...went back and checked. Last day was 3:3 and Rotherham were in the mix. Point is still right that a win for Wednesday would have kept them up. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by cityexile

[REDOXO]

15 minutes ago, cityexile said:

Lot of sympathy for Wycombe, but the ‘butterfly’ effect of proving ‘if this happened, this would have resulted’ is pretty hard to prove.

Lets take the very last day. My memory was it was a three way shoot out. Derby had to win against Wednesday to stay up and relegate both Wednesday and Wycombe. They did (3 -2?) then finished in the order Derby, Wycombe, Wednesday.

However, imagine the scenario in which Derby had already been deducted points. The last day would have felt very different. Derby already down, a Wednesday win and it is them that survive, not Wycombe. The odds on Wycombe on that last day were heavily always to finish third bottom assuming a winner in the other game.

I have always felt given an early points deduction for Derby, the balance of probability was that Wednesday, not Wycombe, would have stayed up.

edit...went back and checked. Last day was 3:3 and Rotherham were in the mix. Point is still right that a win for Wednesday would have kept them up. 

Yes there is validity to this. Not sure that helps Derby mind you.A Points deduction would have saved someone. Perhaps all three have a case. 
 

However That does underpin the utter mess that was made and the mockery of any kind of right to a fair hearing by any of the clubs that went down. 

[Hxj]

There are persistent rumours circulating up here that:

1.  The reason that there has been no significant progress is that no one actually wants to take the club out of Administration, the costs are too high;
2.  Therefore it is possible that the Club will go into liquidation as early as this month and that preliminary steps are being taken to assist that process.

Nothing more than a swirl of rumours at the moment.

Tragic if it does happen.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Hxj

[Ska Junkie]

19 minutes ago, Hxj said:

There are persistent rumours circulating up here that:

1.  The reason that there has been no significant progress is that no one actually wants to take the club out of Administration, the costs are too high;
2.  Therefore it is possible that the Club will go into liquidation as early as this month and that preliminary steps are being taken to assist that process.

Nothing more than a swirl of rumours at the moment.

Tragic if it does happen.

Extremely sad if any club has to go through this, particularly a big club like Derby but, like the smaller clubs that have sadly been wound up, rules are rules.

My best wishes to the Derby support, we've been there and survived by a whisker, many years ago.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Ska Junkie

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Ska Junkie said:

Extremely sad if any club has to go through this, particularly a big club like Derby but, like the smaller clubs that have sadly been wound up, rules are rules.

My best wishes to the Derby support, we've been there and survived by a whisker, many years ago.

Lynch mob being assembled for Morris Mansions!

[Ska Junkie]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Lynch mob being assembled for Morris Mansions!

You're the man for this Fevs. Would we have failed all the criteria back in the day, even though we would have had parachute payments? I appreciate it would be pure opinion, just interested.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Ska Junkie

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Ska Junkie said:

You're the man for this Fevs. Would we have failed all the criteria back in the day, even though we would have had parachute payments? I appreciate its would be pure opinion, just interested.

Crikey, I’ve never really looked back at those times and thought in today’s world we’d have had PPs.  I guess it would’ve helped with those long contracts.

[ExiledAjax]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Crikey, I’ve never really looked back at those times and thought in today’s world we’d have had PPs.  I guess it would’ve helped with those long contracts.

But the quantum conundrum is that had we known we would have PP, would we have had more players, on bigger contracts, and so failed anyway. It's absolutely impossible to say really.

On Derby, I've said all along I've no desire to see the Club liquidate. It's a fine old club and doesn't deserve to cease existence due to the greed of a few bad men.

I've also said that I want Clubs to be properly legally protected heritage assets, with criminal penalties for abuse of those assets during the stewardship of owners.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

But the quantum conundrum is that had we known we would have PP, would we have had more players, on bigger contracts, and so failed anyway. It's absolutely impossible to say really.

On Derby, I've said all along I've no desire to see the Club liquidate. It's a fine old club and doesn't deserve to cease existence due to the greed of a few bad men.

I've also said that I want Clubs to be properly legally protected heritage assets, with criminal penalties for abuse of those assets during the stewardship of owners.

I’ve always said it’ll take a big club to go under to force change.  Derby are a big club, they may not be in the PL, but they are still a big club.

If they do get liquidated and results expunged it will be a sad day for the EFL and Derby, but it’s been coming.  It happens to other businesses.  It sounds a bit cold-hearted I accept.

[Bristol Oil Services]

14 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

But the quantum conundrum is that had we known we would have PP, would we have had more players, on bigger contracts, and so failed anyway. It's absolutely impossible to say really.

On Derby, I've said all along I've no desire to see the Club liquidate. It's a fine old club and doesn't deserve to cease existence due to the greed of a few bad men.

I've also said that I want Clubs to be properly legally protected heritage assets, with criminal penalties for abuse of those assets during the stewardship of owners.

With hindsight, Coventry '77 was a disaster. We should’ve slipped back down that first season, reduced the wage bill by losing some of the highly paid over 30s players, sold two or three of or best, bought one or two up and coming players, brought through Kevin Mabbutt in a winning, promoted team, and some more from the youth team, possibly fired Dicksy and attracted a coach for the fast-approaching 1980s - Joe Royle, who applied for the job here twice, and was turnt down, twice! - invested in better scouting, added more seats in the ground and developed the Grandstand adding exec boxes to generate income, sorted the bloody boardroom squabbles out, and maybe returned a little stronger and wiser. A bit like Norwich or Leicester spent the next two or three decades doing.

Reminder: the word "hindsight" is second word in, at the top.

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Moments of Pleasure

[ExiledAjax]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’ve always said it’ll take a big club to go under to force change.  Derby are a big club, they may not be in the PL, but they are still a big club.

If they do get liquidated and results expunged it will be a sad day for the EFL and Derby, but it’s been coming.  It happens to other businesses.  It sounds a bit cold-hearted I accept.

Perhaps, perhaps one of the old dames  needs to die before the others start to worry. A shame as you say, but perhaps it's the only way? Sadly I don't think it would make the likes of Villa, Leeds, or even dare I say Forest start arguing for much change.

5 minutes ago, Moments of Pleasure said:

With hindsight, Coventry '77 was a disaster. We should’ve slipped back down that first season, reduced the wage bill by losing some of the highly paid over 30s players, sold two or three of or best, bought one or two up and coming players, brought through Kevin Mabbutt in a winning, promoted team, and some more from the youth team, possibly fired Dicksy and attracted a coach for the fast-approaching 1980s - Joe Royle, who applied for the job here twice, and was turnt down, twice! - invested in better scouting, added more seats in the ground and developed the Grandstand adding exec boxes to generate income, sorted the bloody boardroom squabbles out, and maybe returned a little stronger and wiser. A bit like Norwich or Leicester spent the next two or three decades doing.

Reminder: the word "hindsight" is second word in, at the top.

Being too young to have witnessed all of this, I bow to your knowledge.

[REDOXO]

12 minutes ago, Moments of Pleasure said:

With hindsight, Coventry '77 was a disaster. We should’ve slipped back down that first season, reduced the wage bill by losing some of the highly paid over 30s players, sold two or three of or best, bought one or two up and coming players, brought through Kevin Mabbutt in a winning, promoted team, and some more from the youth team, possibly fired Dicksy and attracted a coach for the fast-approaching 1980s - Joe Royle, who applied for the job here twice, and was turnt down, twice! - invested in better scouting, added more seats in the ground and developed the Grandstand adding exec boxes to generate income, sorted the bloody boardroom squabbles out, and maybe returned a little stronger and wiser. A bit like Norwich or Leicester spent the next two or three decades doing.

Reminder: the word "hindsight" is second word in, at the top.

 

Woulda coulda shoulda. We were buggered because the idiots that ran the club after Harry died were just that. Nothing to do with getting a draw at Coventry. 

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I've also said that I want Clubs to be properly legally protected heritage assets, with criminal penalties for abuse of those assets during the stewardship of owners.

Clubs ceased to be 'heritage assets' (sic) decades ago.

If fans are so concerned there's nothing to stop them buying and running clubs, save in most cases they've neither the wherewithal or nous. Fans want their cake and eat it, somebody else to pick up the tab for their passion, somebody else to hold own the risk. Fans need to get real, but fans will never, ever take realism over results.

Good luck with defining whatever 'abuse of assets' might be, but once you have quite how criminal penalties will benefit such 'heritage assets' and their fans is, I fear, a constitutional mystery?

[Ska Junkie]

2 hours ago, REDOXO said:

Woulda coulda shoulda. We were buggered because the idiots that ran the club after Harry died were just that. Nothing to do with getting a draw at Coventry. 

Would we have been okay by the modern criteria though? We blatantly put the club at risk but hindsight is very easy 40 years on, hence the question. I have no idea TBH.

To counter my question, we would have had 3 years PP nowadays.

Edited December 12, 2021 by Ska Junkie

[Ska Junkie]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’ve always said it’ll take a big club to go under to force change.  Derby are a big club, they may not be in the PL, but they are still a big club.

If they do get liquidated and results expunged it will be a sad day for the EFL and Derby, but it’s been coming.  It happens to other businesses.  It sounds a bit cold-hearted I accept.

Should they be treated any differently to smaller clubs though because they're a 'big club' with an envied history?

 

[Davefevs]

10 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

Should they be treated any differently to smaller clubs though because they're a 'big club' with an envied history?

 

Nope

[Hxj]

The "Results of the Creditors' Meeting" have been added to all Derby County companies in Administration.

When these are available remember they relate to the "Administrators' Proposals" to spend £3 million not finding (so far) anyone willing to cover the debts.  So nothing interesting will happen yet.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I thought they were going down the deemed consent road- but thanks for the update of course @Hxj

Wondering how this approach affects things as it sounds a bit novel?

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I thought they were going down the deemed consent road

They are.  'Deemed Consent' means that if you do not vote you are deemed to have accepted the arrangements.  You can still vote for or against the arrangements.

Therefore the votes still need to be added up to show that the resolutions are agreed or not.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

Two Derby updates. Not really followed their saga much of late.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-wycombe-middlesbrough-efl-6347739

Couhig appears to be pushing ahead with his claim. Where there's blame there's a claim so hopefully it gets a fair hearing.

Result of the Creditors Meeting is now out. There will not be a Creditors Committee established it would appear. Or is that the proposal? Either way sections 6 and 7 seem pertinent.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 + 2=5 here on my part- maybe- but that I assume means the creditors have agreed or something?

Have HMRC caved or.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I assume means the creditors have agreed

As above    They've agreed that the Administrators can be paid, that there will be no Creditors' Committee, and the Administrators will have no ongoing liability once the Administration is over.

In other words nothing important has happened.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

As above    They've agreed that the Administrators can be paid, that there will be no Creditors' Committee, and the Administrators will have no ongoing liability once the Administration is over.

In other words nothing important has happened.

Again, I think everyone's biggest concern here was always that Quantuma would get paid, and would be able to walk away at the end of everything. Thank god that has been formally agreed. 

Happy Christmas everyone.

NB. This post is intended to convey sarcasm, condescension, and all other low forms of wit. It should be read in a voice drier than the driest Natch you've ever tasted.

[Hxj]

So latest update - thanks to dcfcfans and elsewhere:

Discussions are being held regarding transfers and contract negotiations, but no decisions until new owner.

Three bidders - no preferred bidder as bids are complicated and are still being evaluated.

Discussions with HMRC are positive

No CVA proposal out yet.

 

My takes:

On preferred bidder - I don’t understand the delay - the Administrators appear to be bright blokes who think they are worth £1 million in fees - I read this as ‘we need more money to pay the debts’.  After all the published information from the Administrators showed significant weekly cash flow out which needs funding as well.

On transfers - wait until a serious bid comes in for Lawrence …

On HMRC - what else can you say …

On no CVA proposal - the Administration will run into the transfer window with all those implications - now unlikely to be sorted before the end of January.

 

The drift towards liquidation or a further 15 point deduction next season increases everyday.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2021 by Hxj

[Port Said Red]

"Discussions with HMRC are positive".

As someone being chased for £191 tax on my paltry Job Seekers allowance last January, I will be pissed off if the HMRC write off the millions they are iwed out of this situation.