Derby County

[Hxj]

20 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

And then there were two.

Are there really two - or just one the Binnies - who already know that their bid to buy the club (without the stadium) is not enough to avoid further sanctions next season?

Edited February 6, 2022 by Hxj

[chinapig]

2 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Mike Ashley has pulled out, blaming the administrators 

Has he issued a statement to that effect?

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Are there really two - or just one the Binnies - who already know that their bid to buy the club (without the stadium) is not enough to avoid further sanctions next season?

In which case….and then there was one!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Saw some interesting snippets on Derby forum.

Even with the Derby amortisation method being upheld, a poster whose financial views I rate a lot reckons all things being equal ie no major player sales they would have failed by £20.5m to 2021.

The agreed decision seems fair, although I do wonder if there might have been an amortisation overhang ie still more to amortise to this season and maybe next which might have challenged Derby in meeting the reset £13m target.

It's all history now anyway that side of it.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 05/02/2022 at 08:37, BTRFTG said:

Signally, Morris' ramblings would better able to be scrutinized had his companies published unimpaired accounts - oh the irony. 

I may not know much about anything but as an ex Estates Director I do know a bit about property asset valuation, including bespoke assets. As with his reference to amortization it strikes me Morris fails to appreciate the problem isn't that there are options available for valuation, rather that when one picks an option one should stick to it.

Think of it like this. A football stadium is a a large, capital hungry, expensive to maintain and largely underutilized structure. It serves primarily to facilitate business income for its occupant. That's why it makes sense to split such entities and why you don't see estate agents in your High Street regularly flogging them, there being few buyers. So how much is a stadium worth? 

If you're an investor not owing a football club the answer would be a measure of how much income might be generated each year by the facility? Rent from the football club, income from other events, conferencing, hospitality, advertising et al. When questioned about Derby's valuation, assuming an income based valuation, Morris gave an odd and contradictory answer. On one hand he reminded football affords only 30 days income, that fitting in events around football is problematic, that with very high overheads such events make nowhere near as much money as folks imagine. On the other he said  he'd researched a solution to show Derby could deliver 100 such events each year delivering £12m of non-football related income. Impressive. Now were I a potential buyer my first thoughts would be why's Morris selling this cash cow and please may I see the books to show actually how much income has historically been generated? Accounts being problematic Morris opts for another valuation option, one most normal folks wouldn't adopt when assessing value.

Morris adopts a perfectly acceptable option, it's called Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) and in simple terms asks how much would I have to spend to replace the functionality of what's already there? This works fine provided you also accept the caveats associated with its methodology (that's the bit with which Morris has a problem.) It's useful for insurance purposes but unlike housing (where there's always demand,) never produces a value higher than its actual cost of replacement. It's the reverse of something some of you will have encountered when taking out buildings insurance on your home - why's the insured value less than I paid for it? It's a theoretical value, one unlikely to be used. It's not a value you'd achieve if selling on the open market. Morris argued it would cost £81m to replace Pride Park. Perhaps he's right, but the question would be why would you ever do that? That's the problem with his rationale, he's picks and chooses to suit.

In the near future he may well be looking at need of a third method of valuation, that of Residual Land Value and I can tell him for nothing that'll be low single digits.

Now, if only Morris had explained how, under Derby's employ, Tom Ince's mother became the highest paid scout in British football despite her knowing little about football....

Still on about the stadium? The sale price was proven to be fair and the decision wasn't even appealed by the EFL. Move on.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

21 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw some interesting snippets on Derby forum.

Even with the Derby amortisation method being upheld, a poster whose financial views I rate a lot reckons all things being equal ie no major player sales they would have failed by £20.5m to 2021.

The agreed decision seems fair, although I do wonder if there might have been an amortisation overhang ie still more to amortise to this season and maybe next which might have challenged Derby in meeting the reset £13m target.

It's all history now anyway that side of it.

To be honest, I imagine it would have been much lower than that. I think we all know Derby would have lumped as much under 'Covid impairment' as possible.

There's only Lawrence, Bielik and Jozwiak left who were bought for anything above a nominal fee. Based on their contract lengths remaining we'd have been slightly better off in terms of P&S for the two P&S periods you refer to. The period after those though would have been quite a bit worse (3 years to 2024)

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Still on about the stadium? The sale price was proven to be fair and the decision wasn't even appealed by the EFL. Move on.

Then Morris will have no problem selling it for £81m, morally paying off all the debts he's amassed, including best part of £30m to the taxpayer, thus allowing your club to survive. But he won't, as with the rest of your club he's rotten to the core. The ground's worthless, pretty much like your club. Why should other clubs 'move on' from a cheating contrivance that temporarily gave Derby an unfair advantage but which has a real chance of becoming their downfall.

I normally couldn't give two hoots about other clubs but given Derby's two-faced cheating, duplicity and paranoid carping, carping that's even outdone The Scouse in self pity,  I really do hope they go out of business. The quicker the better for all football.

[chinapig]

19 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Then Morris will have no problem selling it for £81m, morally paying off all the debts he's amassed, including best part of £30m to the taxpayer, thus allowing your club to survive. But he won't, as with the rest of your club he's rotten to the core. The ground's worthless, pretty much like your club. Why should other clubs 'move on' from a cheating contrivance that temporarily gave Derby an unfair advantage but which has a real chance of becoming their downfall.

I normally couldn't give two hoots about other clubs but given Derby's two-faced cheating, duplicity and paranoid carping, carping that's even outdone The Scouse in self pity,  I really do hope they go out of business. The quicker the better for all football.

It did strike me when I read that Ashley had withdrawn his bid that the obvious solution would be for Morris to buy the club and pay off the debts now he is a hero with Derby fans again.

As you suggest, he could fund that by selling the stadium at it's alleged market value. As he also seems confident he would defeat Boro's claim that shouldn't be a barrier.

[BTRFTG]

25 minutes ago, chinapig said:

It did strike me when I read that Ashley had withdrawn his bid that the obvious solution would be for Morris to buy the club and pay off the debts now he is a hero with Derby fans again.

As you suggest, he could fund that by selling the stadium at it's alleged market value. As he also seems confident he would defeat Boro's claim that shouldn't be a barrier.

No surprises the Derby fan seeks to deflect from the real issue at hand. Had they bothered to read my post they'd know (as I'm sure they do,) the £81m was an insurance (not market) value and as such would never have sold to another entity at that price. That's why, though transferring ownership, no cash changed hands - another key indicator of when a 'sale' (sic) is anything but. 

It's just more deflection and conflation from duplicitous supporters. Those who revelled in the short term success Morris' cheating brought them. Instead of blaming the conman they should be blaming themselves.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Still on about the stadium? The sale price was proven to be fair and the decision wasn't even appealed by the EFL. Move on.

If it goes back to the club at £20m say though, even accounting for the MSD security, that's quite a gap.

Especially given that the club a) Successfully defended the £81.1m valuation in front of the 1st IDC and b) The company who defended the valuation stated that it considered £81m to be fair, there was some little note on Gellaw Newco 202 1st set of accounts.

Strikes me that if it goes back to the club- and back to the club or back to the new owner in a different group, these are two different things- then that is new evidence to an extent.

Two different scenarios:

1) The Football Group and the Stadium Group are kept separate for P&S purposes. Provided that there is a fair value rent (even a paper one) then all is well. 20 Year lease etc...

2) The Football Group and the Stadium Group are reconsolidated into one 3-4 years into said arrangement. As if the transaction never happened?

Big problem with that and something I'd hope that the EFL would push back on.

3 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

To be honest, I imagine it would have been much lower than that. I think we all know Derby would have lumped as much under 'Covid impairment' as possible.

There's only Lawrence, Bielik and Jozwiak left who were bought for anything above a nominal fee. Based on their contract lengths remaining we'd have been slightly better off in terms of P&S for the two P&S periods you refer to. The period after those though would have been quite a bit worse (3 years to 2024)

Well it was a £30m P&S loss in 2018/19 alone. The amortisation spiked big time in 2019/20 (as seen in IDC 1). I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't have been a breach to either 2021 or 2022. Using your figures in fact under the Derby way, it showed some big amortisation numbers- Ghost of Clough is the poster in q who stated £20.5m.

Presumably his workings would be:

£7m P&S profit in 2018

£30m P&S loss in 2019

The combined losses in 2020 and 2021 sound astronomical in that scenario. £73m/2=£36.5m?? That can't be right. Although I pay a lot of attention to that poster football finance wise but those possible P&S losses are enormous.

Full credit on the workings but how the losses hit such levels is difficult to fathom.

That said, I looked at the Agreed Decision again and assuming the principle of reset, there would have been a high bar to fail P&S to 2021 and yet it was done! £1.96m over, presumably the combined average. Total P&S losses of over £50m in that combined period.

Of course clubs can put what they like in the Covid loss section but whether the EFL accept them in the fullness of time in conjunction with P&S regs is a different matter. Am thinking Stoke and their £30m Covid Impairment especially.

You mention Impairment but this was covered to an extent in the June order, no Impairment except with EFL permission etc.

Some good instructions moving forward actually.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Derby_Ram]

I can't wait for the day this topic vanishes from the first page of this forum

Supporters meeting with Quantuma today and the 31st Jan deadline for resubmission of accounts was discussed. Extension was agreed with the EFL and they should be posted within the next few days - not imminently, just the next few days!

Then we can go back around everything again. In the meantime I'm hoping someone else braves coach one in the next few weeks....

 

[Derby_Ram]

And for those who haven't noticed we have the small matter of a trip to Boro this weekend. Given the rubbish Sky pick I have no idea how this one hasn't been moved from Saturday 3pm for live TV (or on police advice).

[Lanterne Rouge]

7 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:

And for those who haven't noticed we have the small matter of a trip to Boro this weekend. Given the rubbish Sky pick I have no idea how this one hasn't been moved from Saturday 3pm for live TV (or on police advice).

You`re on tomorrow v Hull aren`t you? Big game that.

[Bristol Rob]

15 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:

And for those who haven't noticed we have the small matter of a trip to Boro this weekend. Given the rubbish Sky pick I have no idea how this one hasn't been moved from Saturday 3pm for live TV (or on police advice).

Would imagine the atmosphere will be beyond toxic for that.

Like you say, surprised it hasn't been moved. Sky are probably waiting until the last minute and then they'll move it, because they do everything they can to help fans.

[REDOXO]

4 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Then Morris will have no problem selling it for £81m, morally paying off all the debts he's amassed, including best part of £30m to the taxpayer, thus allowing your club to survive. But he won't, as with the rest of your club he's rotten to the core. The ground's worthless, pretty much like your club. Why should other clubs 'move on' from a cheating contrivance that temporarily gave Derby an unfair advantage but which has a real chance of becoming their downfall.

I normally couldn't give two hoots about other clubs but given Derby's two-faced cheating, duplicity and paranoid carping, carping that's even outdone The Scouse in self pity,  I really do hope they go out of business. The quicker the better for all football.

Never hold back. Say what you think fella

[Mr Popodopolous]

46 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:

I can't wait for the day this topic vanishes from the first page of this forum

Supporters meeting with Quantuma today and the 31st Jan deadline for resubmission of accounts was discussed. Extension was agreed with the EFL and they should be posted within the next few days - not imminently, just the next few days!

Then we can go back around everything again. In the meantime I'm hoping someone else braves coach one in the next few weeks....

 

Thanks for the update. Not sure if I agree with the decision to extend, that's a bad sign- I wouldn't have seen it as right to give an extension but I suppose a lot is going on...

[Clevedon Red]

On 06/02/2022 at 09:52, Monkeh said:

Mike Ashley has pulled out, blaming the administrators 

Not according to sky.

 

[Bristol Rob]

2 hours ago, Clevedon Red said:

Not according to sky.

 

He also has an interest in selling Slazenger t-shirts in a variety of sizes, none of which are consistent or remotely human in their form, but are so cheap, it isn't worth the parking charge to return them.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Dipped back into DCFCFans- don't often read it these days.

Varied posters on there still argue that the amortisation method was correct. That the EFL, the process whoever- were wrong.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I don't understand, what isn't to be understood.

Quote

All @BoroWillhas done is confirmed that DCFC have been punished by the EFL but Gibson doesnt think its enough. His beef is against the EFL, they punished us according to their rules and are continuing to punisn us way above any crime we have committed.

Loss of covid payment

Fine

Transfer embargo.

Wage cap

21 points deduction

Withholding of SKY TV money

It's all covered by the regulations..

Whether the clubs actually have a valid claim is a different debate.

When were Middlesbrough £70m over FFP?? Blurring of lines between Profit and Loss account and debt maybe?

Quote

Will, Mel Morris did not say it was legal he put it in the press Gibson you lead i follow, meaning if you can bend the rules so can Derby.

Bristol City have had 2 share releases to beat ffp, surprise the owner bought them all, wonder if anyone had a chance too purchase any on the open market?  Cheating or not ?

not looked into this one but informed when boro promoted they were £70 million over ffp, and when relegated surprise no points deductions.

The ******* share issue is merely taking the loss limit from lower to upper! Conversion from debt or cash to equity- meaning we can aim at £39m not £15m- it's all acceptable and all clubs with owners with sufficent wealth do this, I would assume.

QPR were £50m at least over FFP when promoted, indeed the EFL wanted to fine them pretty much the full whack- £50-55m I believe was touted early on and the highest I've seen was £58m. I'm sure if Middlesbrough had been anything like that, let alone £70m over when promoted this would have made a big splash! It is in fact possible that they were £2-3m over in 2015/16 when promoted- back in the days of fine or embargo, 1 year rule etc.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

28 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Dipped back into DCFCFans- don't often read it these days.

Varied posters on there still argue that the amortisation method was correct. That the EFL, the process whoever- were wrong.

That one thread that is just the key updates, and isn't just an echo chamber of suffering is useful. Shows you stuff like this that I'd otherwise miss.

Quantuma update that puts pay to some of the claims we see regularly on here from our visitors, such as that a 'deal has been reached with HMRC' - principles have been accepted, but no 'deal' signed.

We [RamsTrust] put the following questions to Derby County administrators at today’s supporters’ groups meeting.

Ramstrust: Can you confirm that you received an ‘asking price bid’ of £28m from the Binnie Brothers to buy the club?

Quantuma: As you know our stance throughout has been that we cannot and will not comment on individual interested parties. That remains the case.

Can you confirm that this would therefore satisfy unsecured creditors at a minimum of 25p in the £1 – thereby avoiding any further points penalty?

Again we cannot comment on individual offers. However, we would envisage any offer that is accepted would meet the minimum 25p in the £ to creditors.

Has an agreement been reached with HMRC for the repayment required and likewise with other creditors?

The position with HMRC remains unchanged and has been covered in multiple previous meetings. They have requested an update which we will provide shortly. However, as we have previously advised, we have shared our draft proposal with HMRC which covered various scenarios. They were happy with the principles in that draft proposal. As previously advised, HMRC will not give formal approval to any proposal before it is in final form. We will provide that proposal once the preferred bidder is chosen and the exit strategy is confirmed.

Can you confirm whether you are in a position to accept this bid as it does not include the stadium, when you have always indicated they would be sold as a package?

We have previously stated that we envisaged the stadium as all interested parties had indicated that was their preference. If an interested party decided that they would in fact rather rent the stadium, and the administrators felt that party represented the best offer for the club, then they would consider it. Our job is to get the best deal for the creditors of the companies in administration.

Can you confirm that the offer would also provide sufficient funding immediately in order to satisfy the EFL that we can complete the season?

All offers include funding through to the end of the season and beyond.

If the proposal by Mel Morris re claims from Middlesborough and Wycombe is accepted, are there any other issues holding up announcing a preferred bidder?

Should the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims be resolved there would be a short period of time before the exit plan is finalised. This is all subject to approval of the parties involved including the EFL.

Will the administrators ask Mel to confirm whether he would indemnify the club against claims if Boro/WW refuse Mel’s offer (or it otherwise appears unworkable)?

Should the proposal be rejected for any reason we would work with the EFL, the other clubs and Mel Morris to try to come to a workable solution.

What is your position on EFL’s proposed meeting with all parties including HMRC?

If the offer to cover legal claims is refused, will you do this? We would be happy to attend meetings with any parties where it would provide constructive progress. It may not be the case that an all-parties meeting would be constructive in the circumstances but it would be considered. Clearly, we were alarmed at confidential discussions being leaked to the press within 2 hours of a prior meeting with various parties despite the importance of confidentiality having been made, at length, at the outset of the meeting.

Is the admins’ understanding that the attempt to broker a £7m out-of-court settlement with bidders on behalf of Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers was made by the EFL?

It would be speculation on our part to answer and we do not want to enter into such speculation about third parties.

Has a cost been agreed for Pride Park Stadium for prospective purchasers?

We have answered the question regarding Pride Park before. The price is confidential but has been reported to us and relayed to interested parties upon request. The price doesn’t change dependent on who puts a bid in but we will not be publicising the price.

Can the administrators confirm that Mel Morris wishes to have no further involvement in Derby County if/ when they exit administration?

There are only two possible roles that he may have going forward. The first would be as landlord in the event that a sale was made that didn’t include the stadium. The second would be in relation to defending the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims. Mel Morris has no involvement with any of the interested parties. Aside from that, Mel Morris has never indicated that he wishes to have any role in the club going forward.

Can the administrators confirm the reason Stephen Pearce is still involved in the club when he was a major reason we are in this position?

As we have previously stated, we are not prepared to discuss individuals employed by the club.

Why were players that Wayne Rooney didn’t want to leave sold after he was apparently assured by them that this wouldn’t happen?

We have always said we did not wish to sell players and that we endeavoured to keep disruption to the footballing side of the club to a minimum. We have spoken to the manager about the reasons for the transfers. There is not a continuous amount of money we can borrow.

More specifically, why was Graham Shinnie sold given that the reported fee was only £30k?

We are not prepared to talk about specific players. However, there is always more to consider to the economics of a transfer than merely the headline fee.

After sales of youth players, apparently behind the manager’s back, could there still be further sales?

We do not currently envisage further sales, but any approaches would be considered in the usual way and discussed with the manager if they merit further consideration.

Doesn’t selling Derby’s players, particularly those who may be worth millions in future years for much lower sums now, reduce the value of the assets that potential purchasers would be buying and therefore risk jeopardising the sale?

There has to be an element of realism about the dire financial status of the club. Given the immediacy of the difficulties the club faces we can’t sit there and think about what a player may be worth in future. Players wouldn’t have been sold if it wasn’t absolutely necessary. All interested parties are realistic about the possibility of relegation and the status of the squad.

If we do prove funding for the remainder of the season, would we then be able to renew players’ contracts to avoid further players leaving for nothing?

Subject to EFL clearance, any such decisions would be made in conjunction with the Manager and the preferred bidder. We are all trying to get to the position where this is possible.

How would the Boro and Wycombe claims be dealt with in a normal company insolvency where EFL rules don’t exist?

Creditors are invited to submit claims for debts owed. The Insolvency Practitioner would then adjudicate on whether the claims should be accepted in full, rejected in part or rejected in full. The creditors can then challenge the Insolvency Practitioner’s decision through the Court if all or part of their claim has been rejected.

Do you believe Mel Morris’s offer will be allowed from a legal standpoint? And do you think the EFL, Boro and Wycombe will allow it?

We don’t have any input. However, it will be for the clubs to decide whether they are willing to accept the offer.

There has been talk in the press about a possible insurance policy against the claims. Is this correct?

Yes, we have looked into it but currently feel the premiums are prohibitive and the legal costs of defending the claims would also have to be funded.

There was a 3 point penalty that was suspended pending the filing of accounts on 31 Jan. Has there been an extension?

We received a short extension and expect to file the accounts within 2 or 3 days. The EFL has been kept fully aware.

What ability does Quantuma have to take claims against other clubs?

The legal advice received by the administrators states the claims against Derby are legally weak and so we have no current plans to bring claims against other clubs on the same basis.

It appears that there is sufficient money for February. Are you happy we will be able to continue to trade as a football club if this isn’t sorted by then?

Funding has been difficult throughout the administration but we remain optimistic about resolving the issues to enable continued trading and exit from administration.

Can you stop players who are into the last six months of their contracts from signing for other clubs?

No.

Does RamsTV make money for the club?

Yes. Also filling the ground, buying advertising and spending in the concourses or on hospitality. Revenue from the Birmingham game was excellent.

You said you were 95% of the club avoiding liquidation. Is that still the case?

Yes, I am confident. Certain matters have changed dramatically but we continue to address them and remain confident.

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

That one thread that is just the key updates, and isn't just an echo chamber of suffering is useful. Shows you stuff like this that I'd otherwise miss.

Quantuma update that puts pay to some of the claims we see regularly on here from our visitors, such as that a 'deal has been reached with HMRC' - principles have been accepted, but no 'deal' signed.

We [RamsTrust] put the following questions to Derby County administrators at today’s supporters’ groups meeting.

Ramstrust: Can you confirm that you received an ‘asking price bid’ of £28m from the Binnie Brothers to buy the club?

Quantuma: As you know our stance throughout has been that we cannot and will not comment on individual interested parties. That remains the case.

Can you confirm that this would therefore satisfy unsecured creditors at a minimum of 25p in the £1 – thereby avoiding any further points penalty?

Again we cannot comment on individual offers. However, we would envisage any offer that is accepted would meet the minimum 25p in the £ to creditors.

Has an agreement been reached with HMRC for the repayment required and likewise with other creditors?

The position with HMRC remains unchanged and has been covered in multiple previous meetings. They have requested an update which we will provide shortly. However, as we have previously advised, we have shared our draft proposal with HMRC which covered various scenarios. They were happy with the principles in that draft proposal. As previously advised, HMRC will not give formal approval to any proposal before it is in final form. We will provide that proposal once the preferred bidder is chosen and the exit strategy is confirmed.

Can you confirm whether you are in a position to accept this bid as it does not include the stadium, when you have always indicated they would be sold as a package?

We have previously stated that we envisaged the stadium as all interested parties had indicated that was their preference. If an interested party decided that they would in fact rather rent the stadium, and the administrators felt that party represented the best offer for the club, then they would consider it. Our job is to get the best deal for the creditors of the companies in administration.

Can you confirm that the offer would also provide sufficient funding immediately in order to satisfy the EFL that we can complete the season?

All offers include funding through to the end of the season and beyond.

If the proposal by Mel Morris re claims from Middlesborough and Wycombe is accepted, are there any other issues holding up announcing a preferred bidder?

Should the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims be resolved there would be a short period of time before the exit plan is finalised. This is all subject to approval of the parties involved including the EFL.

Will the administrators ask Mel to confirm whether he would indemnify the club against claims if Boro/WW refuse Mel’s offer (or it otherwise appears unworkable)?

Should the proposal be rejected for any reason we would work with the EFL, the other clubs and Mel Morris to try to come to a workable solution.

What is your position on EFL’s proposed meeting with all parties including HMRC?

If the offer to cover legal claims is refused, will you do this? We would be happy to attend meetings with any parties where it would provide constructive progress. It may not be the case that an all-parties meeting would be constructive in the circumstances but it would be considered. Clearly, we were alarmed at confidential discussions being leaked to the press within 2 hours of a prior meeting with various parties despite the importance of confidentiality having been made, at length, at the outset of the meeting.

Is the admins’ understanding that the attempt to broker a £7m out-of-court settlement with bidders on behalf of Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers was made by the EFL?

It would be speculation on our part to answer and we do not want to enter into such speculation about third parties.

Has a cost been agreed for Pride Park Stadium for prospective purchasers?

We have answered the question regarding Pride Park before. The price is confidential but has been reported to us and relayed to interested parties upon request. The price doesn’t change dependent on who puts a bid in but we will not be publicising the price.

Can the administrators confirm that Mel Morris wishes to have no further involvement in Derby County if/ when they exit administration?

There are only two possible roles that he may have going forward. The first would be as landlord in the event that a sale was made that didn’t include the stadium. The second would be in relation to defending the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims. Mel Morris has no involvement with any of the interested parties. Aside from that, Mel Morris has never indicated that he wishes to have any role in the club going forward.

Can the administrators confirm the reason Stephen Pearce is still involved in the club when he was a major reason we are in this position?

As we have previously stated, we are not prepared to discuss individuals employed by the club.

Why were players that Wayne Rooney didn’t want to leave sold after he was apparently assured by them that this wouldn’t happen?

We have always said we did not wish to sell players and that we endeavoured to keep disruption to the footballing side of the club to a minimum. We have spoken to the manager about the reasons for the transfers. There is not a continuous amount of money we can borrow.

More specifically, why was Graham Shinnie sold given that the reported fee was only £30k?

We are not prepared to talk about specific players. However, there is always more to consider to the economics of a transfer than merely the headline fee.

After sales of youth players, apparently behind the manager’s back, could there still be further sales?

We do not currently envisage further sales, but any approaches would be considered in the usual way and discussed with the manager if they merit further consideration.

Doesn’t selling Derby’s players, particularly those who may be worth millions in future years for much lower sums now, reduce the value of the assets that potential purchasers would be buying and therefore risk jeopardising the sale?

There has to be an element of realism about the dire financial status of the club. Given the immediacy of the difficulties the club faces we can’t sit there and think about what a player may be worth in future. Players wouldn’t have been sold if it wasn’t absolutely necessary. All interested parties are realistic about the possibility of relegation and the status of the squad.

If we do prove funding for the remainder of the season, would we then be able to renew players’ contracts to avoid further players leaving for nothing?

Subject to EFL clearance, any such decisions would be made in conjunction with the Manager and the preferred bidder. We are all trying to get to the position where this is possible.

How would the Boro and Wycombe claims be dealt with in a normal company insolvency where EFL rules don’t exist?

Creditors are invited to submit claims for debts owed. The Insolvency Practitioner would then adjudicate on whether the claims should be accepted in full, rejected in part or rejected in full. The creditors can then challenge the Insolvency Practitioner’s decision through the Court if all or part of their claim has been rejected.

Do you believe Mel Morris’s offer will be allowed from a legal standpoint? And do you think the EFL, Boro and Wycombe will allow it?

We don’t have any input. However, it will be for the clubs to decide whether they are willing to accept the offer.

There has been talk in the press about a possible insurance policy against the claims. Is this correct?

Yes, we have looked into it but currently feel the premiums are prohibitive and the legal costs of defending the claims would also have to be funded.

There was a 3 point penalty that was suspended pending the filing of accounts on 31 Jan. Has there been an extension?

We received a short extension and expect to file the accounts within 2 or 3 days. The EFL has been kept fully aware.

What ability does Quantuma have to take claims against other clubs?

The legal advice received by the administrators states the claims against Derby are legally weak and so we have no current plans to bring claims against other clubs on the same basis.

It appears that there is sufficient money for February. Are you happy we will be able to continue to trade as a football club if this isn’t sorted by then?

Funding has been difficult throughout the administration but we remain optimistic about resolving the issues to enable continued trading and exit from administration.

Can you stop players who are into the last six months of their contracts from signing for other clubs?

No.

Does RamsTV make money for the club?

Yes. Also filling the ground, buying advertising and spending in the concourses or on hospitality. Revenue from the Birmingham game was excellent.

You said you were 95% of the club avoiding liquidation. Is that still the case?

Yes, I am confident. Certain matters have changed dramatically but we continue to address them and remain confident.

Thanks for this- agreed in principle then with HMRC do we think?

Any big haircut should in turn be reflected in the conditions for the next 2 years any new owners have to work under.

Another one, now one is talking about appealing the -12 and -9!

Quote

There's certainly a case to appeal both the 9-point deuction and also to re-start the appeal against the 12-point Admin deduction. Both were accepted by the Admins in good faith in order to move forward with the sale - the EFL's actions since that point have clearly breached any level of trust and the agreement should therefore be considered invalid.

I've also posted previously that I'm far from sure we were formally charged with breaching P&S rules before accepting the 9-point deduction. It was almost a gentlemans agreement that the re-submitted accounts showed a breach so as we were going to be charged, why not save time and negotiate a suitable punishment? Unless the Admins admitted guilt in accepting the punishment (doubtful) then Gibson and Co possibly are making claims based on our guilt in breaching P&S rules (which technically didn't happen).....

Pretty sure the Agreed Settlement said neither side could reopen it. Try it and just withdraw the Golden Share. Don't transfer it to the new owner or company and let them go pop if they want to act silly.

Some of the logic is hard to fathom.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks for this- agreed in principle then with HMRC do we think?

Seems so, although exactly what "agreed" and "principle" mean we don't know. Could be anything from a very high level agreement to a detailed payment plan that is sat waiting for a signature.

Some other highlights for me were:

There has been talk in the press about a possible insurance policy against the claims. Is this correct?
Yes, we have looked into it but currently feel the premiums are prohibitive and the legal costs of defending the claims would also have to be funded.

I'd raised this, seems it has been explored and discounted. Fair enough.

Why were players that Wayne Rooney didn’t want to leave sold after he was apparently assured by them that this wouldn’t happen?
We have always said we did not wish to sell players and that we endeavoured to keep disruption to the footballing side of the club to a minimum. We have spoken to the manager about the reasons for the transfers. There is not a continuous amount of money we can borrow.

Doesn’t selling Derby’s players, particularly those who may be worth millions in future years for much lower sums now, reduce the value of the assets that potential purchasers would be buying and therefore risk jeopardising the sale?
There has to be an element of realism about the dire financial status of the club. Given the immediacy of the difficulties the club faces we can’t sit there and think about what a player may be worth in future. Players wouldn’t have been sold if it wasn’t absolutely necessary. All interested parties are realistic about the possibility of relegation and the status of the squad.

These two answers together send a pretty clear message to Derby fans (and Rooney) to put up and shut up re player sales.

There was a 3 point penalty that was suspended pending the filing of accounts on 31 Jan. Has there been an extension?
We received a short extension and expect to file the accounts within 2 or 3 days. The EFL has been kept fully aware.

So they did breach the Agreed Decision, but got an extension (presumably two weeks) and will file this week.

You said you were 95% of the club avoiding liquidation. Is that still the case?
Yes, I am confident. Certain matters have changed dramatically but we continue to address them and remain confident.

Bullish as ever.

[Monkeh]

30 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Seems so, although exactly what "agreed" and "principle" mean we don't know. Could be anything from a very high level agreement to a detailed payment plan that is sat waiting for a signature.

Some other highlights for me were:

There has been talk in the press about a possible insurance policy against the claims. Is this correct?
Yes, we have looked into it but currently feel the premiums are prohibitive and the legal costs of defending the claims would also have to be funded.

I'd raised this, seems it has been explored and discounted. Fair enough.

Why were players that Wayne Rooney didn’t want to leave sold after he was apparently assured by them that this wouldn’t happen?
We have always said we did not wish to sell players and that we endeavoured to keep disruption to the footballing side of the club to a minimum. We have spoken to the manager about the reasons for the transfers. There is not a continuous amount of money we can borrow.

Doesn’t selling Derby’s players, particularly those who may be worth millions in future years for much lower sums now, reduce the value of the assets that potential purchasers would be buying and therefore risk jeopardising the sale?
There has to be an element of realism about the dire financial status of the club. Given the immediacy of the difficulties the club faces we can’t sit there and think about what a player may be worth in future. Players wouldn’t have been sold if it wasn’t absolutely necessary. All interested parties are realistic about the possibility of relegation and the status of the squad.

These two answers together send a pretty clear message to Derby fans (and Rooney) to put up and shut up re player sales.

There was a 3 point penalty that was suspended pending the filing of accounts on 31 Jan. Has there been an extension?
We received a short extension and expect to file the accounts within 2 or 3 days. The EFL has been kept fully aware.

So they did breach the Agreed Decision, but got an extension (presumably two weeks) and will file this week.

You said you were 95% of the club avoiding liquidation. Is that still the case?
Yes, I am confident. Certain matters have changed dramatically but we continue to address them and remain confident.

Bullish as ever.

considering the lies and slander these administrators have carried out and continue to, I wouldn't believe anything the produce

[Mr Popodopolous]

Well I've run out of edit time. No Middlesbrough were not £70m over FFP- there was a debt write off of £77m at one point, but this was not done through Profit and Loss so that's good but save for possible Interest payments, not related to FFP strictly speaking. Possibly the write off even predated FFP regs.

Now it did inspire me to look at Middlesbrough. 2014 looks a bit ropey given that the Upper Loss limit at this time was £8m + allowables. £7m in allowables is Middlesbrough's current estimate (Swiss Ramble) but unsure how they complied to 2014 on the old 1 year rule! 2013 we can argue about to some extent but 2014?

Tax on loss on Ordinary activities would be one way but that should be neither here nor there for FFP because then as now, it was Profit or Loss before Tax.

Okay I got that wrong- didn't seem to exist in 2013, 2015 they complied without question, 2016- maybe £2-3m over although nothing definitive- but a big question about 2014 for sure!! Argument that they should have received an Embargo in December 2014, but that would have ended by the summer as they had squeezed their losses down to well within limits in 2014/15.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I don't understand, what isn't to be understood.

It's all covered by the regulations..

Whether the clubs actually have a valid claim is a different debate.

When were Middlesbrough £70m over FFP?? Blurring of lines between Profit and Loss account and debt maybe?

The ******* share issue is merely taking the loss limit from lower to upper! Conversion from debt or cash to equity- meaning we can aim at £39m not £15m- it's all acceptable and all clubs with owners with sufficent wealth do this, I would assume.

QPR were £50m at least over FFP when promoted, indeed the EFL wanted to fine them pretty much the full whack- £50-55m I believe was touted early on and the highest I've seen was £58m. I'm sure if Middlesbrough had been anything like that, let alone £70m over when promoted this would have made a big splash! It is in fact possible that they were £2-3m over in 2015/16 when promoted- back in the days of fine or embargo, 1 year rule etc.

You can’t educate pork. What a bunch of clueless fans they have. Not all of them, but a bunch. 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks for this- agreed in principle then with HMRC do we think?

I read it very differently. I read it as they are happy with the principles of the options, not the actual numbers in the options presented. 

[chinapig]

I'm still puzzled as to how Morris could take the Boro claim on himself when he doesn't own the club. If he can and does is he not admitting personal liability? And would that not extend therefore to all debts owed?

My brain is beginning to hurt.

[Sir Geoff]

5 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm still puzzled as to how Morris could take the Boro claim on himself when he doesn't own the club. If he can and does is he not admitting personal liability? And would that not extend therefore to all debts owed?

My brain is beginning to hurt.

More posturing. He can't as the claims are against the club. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

38 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You can’t educate pork. What a bunch of clueless fans they have. Not all of them, but a bunch. 

I try not to get worked up anymore and try not to throw terms around but some of the views are difficult to understand. Of a chunk of them anyway- I guess the Internet and forums can amplify loud if not necessarily correct voices.