Derby County

[REDOXO]

39 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I was thinking along the same lines.

There has been a lot of concern that tomorrow's match might turn violent, and it is extremely convenient for all involved that a last minute 'solution' has been found.

It remains only for Quantuma to draw up the necessary agreement, and then all is Hunky Dory: in the meantime, the fans, both Home and Away, can attend in good spirits. Problem solved.

It is now Friday evening, however, and, to my knowledge, no formal announcement has yet been made.

The cynic in me wonders whether an unforeseen 'problem' with the proposed agreement might be discovered on Monday morning. 

Exactly. I guess we will see. However if it does kick off tomorrow what little sympathy there is for Derby will all but disappear!

[BTRFTG]

17 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Shall we start drafting a set of precedent documents that we can flog to 72 EFL clubs? 

70 - Derby & Boro need no further help it might appear....

[BTRFTG]

14 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

In summary they can't detail nature of the agreement with Morris/Gibson.

They can, but they won't.

If it is the case they can't, that's because there is no detail.

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

They can, but they won't.

If it is the case they can't, that's because there is no detail.

Unsure. Confidential settlements seem to be the norm- when Derby sacked Sam Rush in May 2017, and he was claiming for unfair dismissal, there was reportedly a confidential settlement and no details were released- about 18 months on.

[Mr Popodopolous]

As for Derby, two bits.

Still 3 from 4. Reading, Peterborough, Derby all lost but signs of life at Barnsley? They beat QPR today and still have Peterborough and Reading to play at Oakwell so they might believe a little bit more.

Off the pitch, reports that Wycombe have received no fresh contact either from Mel Morris or the administrators. EFL need to keep right on with that if so.

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As for Derby, two bits.

Still 3 from 4. Reading, Peterborough, Derby all lost but signs of life at Barnsley? They beat QPR today and still have Peterborough and Reading to play at Oakwell so they might believe a little bit more.

Off the pitch, reports that Wycombe have received no fresh contact either from Mel Morris or the administrators. EFL need to keep right on with that if so.

The BBC reported that Wycombe's owner was flying back from the USA this weekend for talks iirc.

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The BBC reported that Wycombe's owner was flying back from the USA this weekend for talks iirc.

It has been reported but this evening there has been a report that Wycombe have received no new contact.

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/update-emerges-on-wycombe-wanderers-claim-against-derby-county/

[ExiledAjax]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It has been reported but this evening there has been a report that Wycombe have received no new contact.

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/update-emerges-on-wycombe-wanderers-claim-against-derby-county/

But isn't that because Wycombe haven't actually made a proper claim yet? I thought Q said as much in that q&a they did with the fans trust last week?

Edit. Was in Morris' statement.

 

Edited February 12, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

But isn't that because Wycombe haven't actually made a proper claim yet? I thought Q said as much in that q&a they did with the fans trust last week?

Edit. Was in Morris' statement.

 

Thanks- although I question whether the EFL would concur, given that they stated that the claims cannot be compressed/prejudiced whatever. Outstanding claims, no clean exit from administration, no clean exit from administration can a takeover be approved?

Although a story by Nixon- big twist, seems that Derby are studying the ruling by the EFL and might sue Reading if they are relegated by 3 points or less below Reading...is the basis of the claim the mere overspend or the fact it was an overspend masked or attempted to be masked by suspect amortisation policies.

Are they putting themselves on a sticky wicket with proposals such as this if they are still in administration come May and the Golden Share needs to be transferred...I can imagine such proposals antagonising 71 clubs given Derby's recent track record- on a sidenote, the Boro fans didn't hold back it seems! Assume that is Boro?

In theory though, what is good for the goose...but the Derby and Reading cases although they had similarities, are altogether different. What Nixon also fails to mention is that 6 could easily become 12 for Reading this season unless they have and will stick diligently to everything, which would negate Derby's claims somewhat! More likely for 6 to become 12 there than 9 to become 12 at Derby I reckon...

Breaches were different so it's hard to say...the overspends as opposed to the gross figures as such.

Derby

That's a breach in 3 out of 4 assessed periods, with a max of 17 points had the EFL chosen to push it. As we know they also had to be dragged kicking and screaming into being sanctioned- from suggesting new amortisation methods, to suggesting a Revaluation Reserve to offset via of course not submitting accounts correctly.  17 points breaks down as £7.76m=6 point deduction, £11.72m=8 point deduction, £1.96m, well this falls in the £1-1.999m basically, so 3 point deduction. I should say, 9 points plus a further 3 suspended if the budget not stuck to. Bit hard not to stick to the budget when the EFL are signing off transfers etc. I expect the EFL would have (rightly) pushed for -17 if no Agreed Decision.

Professional Standing rule- this probably helped to focus minds too, and one thing that could have helped too would have been if the EFL had made clear that to contest would mean a separate hearing for each 3 year period...time and money that Derby in administration could ill-afford.

Reading

1 period, albeit exceeds £15m so should be a 12 point deduction really. I suppose had they contested it then the EFL would have pushed for a straight -12.

I would suggest that as I mentioned above, Reading have quite a few more trip hazards to stop 6 > 12 this season than Derby do to have 9 > 12...Reading also appear to have been more cooperative by far.

Quantuma- it's interesting and in theory but the two cases and backgrounds differ significantly I would suggest. That's not to say there wouldn't be a case but it's entirely like with like either?

Edited February 13, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

56 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks- although I question whether the EFL would concur, given that they stated that the claims cannot be compressed/prejudiced whatever. Outstanding claims, no clean exit from administration, no clean exit from administration can a takeover be approved?#

Outstanding potential claims. Wycombe may not have claimed formally, but have made it damn clear that once Derby are taken over, and have money, then they will? Perhaps that is what has happened. EFL concerned that such a claim would carry and so they'd end up with two clubs in real dispute.

Although a story by Nixon- big twist, seems that Derby are studying the ruling by the EFL and might sue Reading if they are relegated by 3 points or less below Reading...is the basis of the claim the mere overspend or the fact it was an overspend masked or attempted to be masked by suspect amortisation policies.

Are they putting themselves on a sticky wicket with proposals such as this if they are still in administration come May and the Golden Share needs to be transferred...I can imagine such proposals antagonising 71 clubs given Derby's recent track record- on a sidenote, the Boro fans didn't hold back it seems! Assume that is Boro?

In theory though, what is good for the goose...but the Derby and Reading cases although they had similarities, are altogether different. What Nixon also fails to mention is that 6 could easily become 12 for Reading this season unless they have and will stick diligently to everything, which would negate Derby's claims somewhat! More likely for 6 to become 12 there than 9 to become 12 at Derby I reckon...

Breaches were different so it's hard to say...the overspends as opposed to the gross figures as such.

Derby

That's a breach in 3 out of 4 assessed periods, with a max of 17 points had the EFL chosen to push it. As we know they also had to be dragged kicking and screaming into being sanctioned- from suggesting new amortisation methods, to suggesting a Revaluation Reserve to offset via of course not submitting accounts correctly.  17 points breaks down as £7.76m=6 point deduction, £11.72m=8 point deduction, £1.96m, well this falls in the £1-1.999m basically, so 3 point deduction. I should say, 9 points plus a further 3 suspended if the budget not stuck to. Bit hard not to stick to the budget when the EFL are signing off transfers etc. I expect the EFL would have (rightly) pushed for -17 if no Agreed Decision.

Professional Standing rule- this probably helped to focus minds too, and one thing that could have helped too would have been if the EFL had made clear that to contest would mean a separate hearing for each 3 year period...time and money that Derby in administration could ill-afford.

Reading

1 period, albeit exceeds £15m so should be a 12 point deduction really. I suppose had they contested it then the EFL would have pushed for a straight -12.

I would suggest that as I mentioned above, Reading have quite a few more trip hazards to stop 6 > 12 this season than Derby do to have 9 > 12...Reading also appear to have been more cooperative by far.

Quantuma- it's interesting and in theory but the two cases and backgrounds differ significantly I would suggest. That's not to say there wouldn't be a case but it's entirely like with like either?

Interesting. I guess there's a fair bit of EFL animosity from MM and Quantuma. Anything to make the EFL's life difficult maybe?

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Interesting. I guess there's a fair bit of EFL animosity from MM and Quantuma. Anything to make the EFL's life difficult maybe?

I can believe that- although I do also wonder if they are as I said on a sticky wicket ie whether a risk exists that the EFL- ie the other 71- might decide that they no longer want Derby, by extension Quantuma and Mel Morris- in their League. Bury got expelled and Macclesfield eased out for far, far less.

Takeovers under EFL jurisdiction, these can take months from Preferred Bidder being announced to completion- and the EFL hold/control the Golden Share in any event while clubs are in administration. If still not completed by the end of the season, I wonder what the EFL's 'offer' to a prospective new owner will be for Derby to remain in the League- some other clubs have had this scenario in the past.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

I can believe that- although I do also wonder if they are as I said on a sticky wicket ie whether a risk exists that the EFL- ie the other 71- might decide that they no longer want Derby in their League. Bury got expelled and Macclesfield eased out for far, far less.

true. Would a claim against an EFL club, such as one from Derby against Reading, would that give them leverage to remain in the EFL? I don't have the regs with me so am really not sure, but there might be an argument that they cannot fairly be expelled if they have an active claim? Desperate stuff if so, but the bidders are buying an EFL club, so they need to be in the EFL.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

true. Would a claim against an EFL club, such as one from Derby against Reading, would that give them leverage to remain in the EFL? I don't have the regs with me so am really not sure, but there might be an argument that they cannot fairly be expelled if they have an active claim? Desperate stuff if so, but the bidders are buying an EFL club, so they need to be in the EFL.

Good point- active claim has to be heard after all, may well be true.

Rules may have been different here but the Football League certainly set some harsh terms for Portsmouth in 2011...as part of remaining a member, no legal claims of course.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18816436

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Good point- active claim has to be heard after all, may well be true.

Rules may have been different here but the Football League certainly set some harsh terms for Portsmouth in 2011...as part of remaining a member, no legal claims of course.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18816436

Reasonable. "Yes you can stay, but you're very much on the naughty step."

Interesting how this saga continues to rumble on. Seemingly solved with the MM/Gibson "accord" but then something else rears it's head.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said:

Reasonable. "Yes you can stay, but you're very much on the naughty step."

Interesting how this saga continues to rumble on. Seemingly solved with the MM/Gibson "accord" but then something else rears it's head.

I think in any event, a new owner has to agree a 2 year Business Plan with the EFL- that's separate to the one for P&S breaches that they had to adhere to. Sets limits on wages, fees etc I believe. Debt repayment could be a good condition, maybe as a % of income to HMRC and the 25% for Unsecured Creditors until such time as repaid.

It is...I'd be surprised if Couhig has just shelved his claim for one. Unsure there is any obligation on the EFL to transfer the Golden Share to new owners unless their terms are met- perhaps there is a reasonableness test for terms but if one wants to remain a member, then one had better agree to some of them I reckon.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On reflection, my talk of expulsion etc is a bit much but the way that (for the most part) in the last few years Derby at the upper levels and now Quantuma have acted, continue to act- well it makes it hard to take a balanced and reasonable view. I won't even talk about a section of their fans...

I'm also struggling a little with the concept- @ExiledAjax you know more legally- of action being taken against a club for breaching by a club who have breached in that same period. Albeit both via ratified Agreed Decisions as opposed to a full IDC.

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm also struggling a little with the concept- @ExiledAjax you know more legally- of action being taken against a club for breaching by a club who have breached in that same period. Albeit both via ratified Agreed Decisions as opposed to a full IDC.

Not sure, with the caveat of having a couple of whiskies inside me...I can't think of anything in general law that would prevent it...essentially it doesn't sound much different to a traditional counterclaim.

Whether there is something in the EFL regs or articles that stops it is a different question.

[Davefevs]

Why didn’t EFL punish both Derby and Reading with the right number of points…in line with the scale introduced when Brum got theirs?  In Derby’s case I think they could’ve got some of the “taking the piss” 9 points available too.

[chinapig]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Why didn’t EFL punish both Derby and Reading with the right number of points…in line with the scale introduced when Brum got theirs?  In Derby’s case I think they could’ve got some of the “taking the piss” 9 points available too.

Possibly because the regs allow for agreed penalties. So Reading may have got credit for fessing up.

[Club and Country]

17 arrests at the game yesterday so no love lost between these 2!

[sh1t_ref_again]

Its MM that anoys me the most, my understanding is, Morris sells the ground to himself on paper to try and fudge FFP, does not pay funds due to HMRC therefore having to put less money into Derby to prop them up and cover losses, then when it starts getting messy puts club into admin so does not have to put any more money in. Now owns the ground and will use a tool to get money back out of new owner to again reduce his own losses that he built up for his failed gamble.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[Hxj]

35 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Correct me if I am wrong.

Nope - entirely correct.

[BTRFTG]

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Unsure. Confidential settlements seem to be the norm- when Derby sacked Sam Rush in May 2017, and he was claiming for unfair dismissal, there was reportedly a confidential settlement and no details were released- about 18 months on.

My point being there's no reason one CAN'T have disclosure (full or partial.) For reasons unknown they agreed to keep things confidential. It's said there are 'interested parties' - who they and how would they know whether or not they should have been provided access to the detail?

I sued a former employer who decided to settle on the steps of the High Court and I told them where to stick the few additional grand offered for me to sign the confidentiality agreement they demanded,  in addition to the actual settlement (forget the technical name it takes.) That allowed me to continue to tell the truth about them to all and sundry. They could threaten all they liked but truth would have outed either way, in Court and in the papers or with much lesser publicity.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 11/02/2022 at 16:39, Mr Popodopolous said:

Very good point, although I do believe the costs of exceptional litigation can be excluded from P&S- would these claims fall under this category had Derby themselves paid up?

Yes

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 13/02/2022 at 10:05, Davefevs said:

Why didn’t EFL punish both Derby and Reading with the right number of points…in line with the scale introduced when Brum got theirs?  In Derby’s case I think they could’ve got some of the “taking the piss” 9 points available too.

If it went to DC/LAP, there wouldn't be any "taking the piss" points, as evidenced by the previous decision documents. If anything, they would give reductions for various issues - "acting in good faith", delay between the infringement and charge/penalty, inability to act upon overspend to reduce losses which could have resulted in a lower penalty or even no penalty at all, etc...
Reading, I think would only get a small reduction in penalty for owning up to the infringement (as per BCFC), but may also get an additional point for losses in the final year exceeding previous years.

23 hours ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Its MM that anoys me the most, my understanding is, Morris sells the ground to himself on paper to try and fudge FFP, does not pay funds due to HMRC therefore having to put less money into Derby to prop them up and cover losses, then when it starts getting messy puts club into admin so does not have to put any more money in. Now owns the ground and will use a tool to get money back out of new owner to again reduce his own losses that he built up for his failed gamble.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Mel will get nothing for the stadium. PB gives MSD the money owed for the loan(s), and the stadium is given to the new owner / club.

[Hxj]

32 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Mel will get nothing for the stadium. PB gives MSD the money owed for the loan(s), and the stadium is given to the new owner / club.

That may be the end result.

However legally MSD have claimed in the Administration as they are entitled to do as their debt is secured by the charge on the lease between the football club and the stadium club.

Therefore to exit Administration the club needs to repay that debt.  If it does so then the charge held by MSD will have been met in full, and therefore all the assets currently charged will be released from that charge.

So the Stadium Group, owned by Morris, will contain the Stadium with no charge against that asset.

Only Morris has the power to give the stadium away.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

If it went to DC/LAP, there wouldn't be any "taking the piss" points, as evidenced by the previous decision documents. If anything, they would give reductions for various issues - "acting in good faith", delay between the infringement and charge/penalty, inability to act upon overspend to reduce losses which could have resulted in a lower penalty or even no penalty at all, etc...
Reading, I think would only get a small reduction in penalty for owning up to the infringement (as per BCFC), but may also get an additional point for losses in the final year exceeding previous years.

Mel will get nothing for the stadium. PB gives MSD the money owed for the loan(s), and the stadium is given to the new owner / club.

Birmingham got 7 for the overspend, 3 for losses rising year on year and 1 back for cooperation.

Sheffield Wednesday even if halved due to stadium bungling on all sides issue, dunno why they didn't get the extra 3 for losses rising successively.

Reading would have got 12 for the overspend, 1 back if lucky for cooperation and then 1 or 2 more docked perhaps for the trajectory of losses.

17 points would be the starting point breach wise for Derby, I think the Panel who found Derby guilty wouldn't have reduced it by much. There isn't much mitigation.

If the stadium goes back to the club then I expect the EFL and other clubs to object. Stadium Group needs keeping separate for FFP purposes for some time, ie go to new owner yes, reconsolidated not yet.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Yes

Although could the EFL get funny about that and have used it as a bargaining chip for the Business Plan with new owners? That 2 year business plan needs to be a fairly solid one tbh.

[sh1t_ref_again]

3 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Mel will get nothing for the stadium. PB gives MSD the money owed for the loan(s), and the stadium is given to the new owner / club.

If MM is going to exit with nothing back from the stadium, why does not not come out now and say, that he is giving the stadium back as part of the deal. Or maybe he is still hoping to generate some income back from it, although I guess by having a lone secured against it that he / Derby have pocketed, as the loan will have to be paid off by the new owners to be able to gain access to the ground

[Davefevs]

Seen some stuff on twitter today that Wycombe’s claim is being settled and it’s less than 6 figures.  Surely that can’t be right?