Derby County

[sh1t_ref_again]

5 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

If he wanted money for it he'd be charging rent. £0 paid or requested since entering admin...

Think he may be looking at a big picture than the odd few quid in rent.

We know MM is not short of a few pounds, so if he is that generous and honourable, why not fund the money he should of put in and paid HMRC and countless other unsecured creditors

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 14/02/2022 at 13:43, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

Disagree on "isn't much mitigation".

Relevance of which company owns the stadium? The same fee would be paid one way or another so it doesn't matter at all.

On 14/02/2022 at 15:50, Davefevs said:

But less than 6 figure, means less than £100k???

Wycombe's case was/is exceptionally weak. In simple terms, they disagreed with the EFL's processes.
This'll just be paying their legal fees so far.

On 14/02/2022 at 16:35, BTRFTG said:

Indeed it is, though with amortization Derby clearly thought otherwise.

So if any deal has to be conditional on the new buyer getting their hands on the stadium might it be the case Derby would incur further penalties for understating the quantum of their losses for which they've already been punished?

No

On 14/02/2022 at 19:12, Mr Popodopolous said:

A couple of observations, thoughts etc.

@Hxj

1) Could a drastically cheaper return of the stadium to Derby not constitute new evidence for the EFL. Derby defended the valuation in September 2019, at the IDC and indeed in the accounts for Gellaw Newco 202 to June 2020.

The period that this could most easily materially change would be the 3 years to 2018 (principle of reset, presumably included the Stadium sale, £28.12m 3 year loss means pass).

2) Failing that, the small matter of a Fair Rent applicable to a Fair Value. £4.16m per season/year as per the company who did the valuation- which leads me to my 3rd and final point...

3)...As we have discussed before, the importance of keeping the Stadium Group and the FFP/Club Group separate for FFP purposes- do that and a Fair Value Rent can be thrashed out. Benchmark using other clubs and their % yield etc.

A reconsolidation is not acceptable so soon.

£81.1m had to be proven to be of fair value. Any transfer of stadium to a new club owner would not have to pay fair value.

[ExiledAjax]

4 hours ago, Monkeh said:

We had one yesterday,

From whom? Could you link to it as I can't find anything from Monday.

I'm sure they'll be following tonight's game with interest. Although none of the three possible results help Derby at all. Will be at least 5 points adrift of safety, with 15 games remaining, whatever happens. 7 adrift if Reading win. Big game at the weekend as well for them.

[Mr Popodopolous]

36 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Disagree on "isn't much mitigation".

Relevance of which company owns the stadium? The same fee would be paid one way or another so it doesn't matter at all.

From -17 down to? Birmingham only got one for compliance/admission and Derby were anything but for the most part. What possible mitigation might there be? I doubt we would have seen anything less than -9 for a start,- especially had the EFL appealed it to the original panel who ruled against Derby on amortisation after an initial positive/moderate verdict.

No no, the relevance is the Stadium Group and the Football Group- if reconsolidated into the club's ownership then it makes a nonsense of the 20 year lease and the EFL need to be making this point amongst others to prospective new owners- a rental charge for P&S purposes is a must- whether it is real or paper I don't really care.

If reconsolidated into club ownership/the club group then I don't see where a Fair Rent comes in- if under the new owner but in the stadium group then a rent is workable.

36 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Wycombe's case was/is exceptionally weak. In simple terms, they disagreed with the EFL's processes.
This'll just be paying their legal fees so far.

If it's so weak then they need to stick to their guns and not take the first offer. No clubs should do Derby any favours, given how that club has acted in the last few years.

Plus had Derby submitted their accounts and P&S projections as pretty much other club do, then a breach would have been shown in the Projections to June 2021 and the EFL regs allow for in-season deductions theoretically.

36 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

£81.1m had to be proven to be of fair value. Any transfer of stadium to a new club owner would not have to pay fair value.

That strikes me as creating an FFP issue- the EFL are transferring the Golden Share to new owners, I'd suggest that they impose firm conditions indeed moving forward- and the stadium/rent (paper or otherwise) should be a part of this.

I particularly like this section of the Owners and Directors Test. Perhaps a Fair Rent on the original transaction could be part of imposed conditions.

The other 71 clubs will be watching with interest (not just on that but in general) I'm certain...the section I quite like.

Quote

(b)           submit to the League up to date Future Financial Information (as defined in Regulation 16) prepared to take into account the consequences of the change of Control on the Club’s future financial position; and

 

Quote

3.2          In relation to any proposed acquisition of Control of a Club by a Person, The League shall have:

Quote

3.2.1      the powers set out in Regulation 16.20; and/or

3.2.2      the ability to impose such other conditions,

as in each case it may determine, in order to monitor and/or ensure compliance with Regulations 16 to 19, 21, 22 (including Appendix 3) and 103 to 113 inclusive (and their successor or replacement provisions).

Quote

3.3.3      The Club and any Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule 3.2.

I particularly like that 16.20 alone isn't enough, but ability to impose such other conditions as it may determine. It's carte blanche to some extent!

Edited February 16, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[lenred]

10 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

From -17 down to? Birmingham only got one for compliance/admission and Derby were anything but for the most part. What possible mitigation might there be? I doubt we would have seen anything less than -9 for a start,- especially had the EFL appealed it to the original panel who ruled against Derby on amortisation after an initial positive/moderate verdict.

No no, the relevance is the Stadium Group and the Football Group- if reconsolidated into the club's ownership then it makes a nonsense of the 20 year lease and the EFL need to be making this point amongst others to prospective new owners- a rental charge for P&S purposes is a must- whether it is real or paper I don't really care.

If reconsolidated into club ownership/the club group then I don't see where a Fair Rent comes in- if under the new owner but in the stadium group then a rent is workable.

If it's so weak then they need to stick to their guns and not take the first offer. No clubs should do Derby any favours, given how that club has acted in the last few years.

Plus had Derby submitted their accounts and P&S projections as pretty much other club do, then a breach would have been shown in the Projections to June 2021 and the EFL regs allow for in-season deductions theoretically.

That strikes me as creating an FFP issue- the EFL are transferring the Golden Share to new owners, I'd suggest that they impose firm conditions indeed moving forward- and the stadium/rent (paper or otherwise) should be a part of this.

100%. To suggest otherwise makes a complete mockery of the situation (although to be fair it doesn’t take much to do that!) 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I think what Derby fans would like in respect of a takeover and Pride Park, would be for the stadium to return as pre 2018- full revenue and commercial revenue to the club as before, no rent- but no opportunity to revisit the reset period to 2018 which was only passed owing to the profit on disposal of Pride Park.

Cake and eat it and the EFL need to push back heavily against such ideas.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[lenred]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think what Derby fans would like in respect of a takeover and Pride Park, would be for the stadium to return as pre 2018- full revenue and commercial revenue to the club as before, no rent- but no opportunity to revisit the reset period to 2018 which was only passed owing to the profit on disposal of Pride Park.

Cake and eat it and the EFL need to push back heavily against such ideas.

It amazes me how so many of their fans think they can just wipe the slate clean so to speak in regards all of their past financial misdemeanours and then expect everyone else to just suck it up and crack on. It won’t wash. 

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, lenred said:

It amazes me how so many of their fans think they can just wipe the slate clean so to speak in regards all of their past financial misdemeanours and then expect everyone else to just suck it up and crack on. It won’t wash. 

I mean...if they liquidated and set up a new company/club...well that would be one way.

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

£81.1m had to be proven to be of fair value. Any transfer of stadium to a new club owner would not have to pay fair value.

From both an accounts/tax perspective and also EFL's F&S /FFP I'd love to understand the logic how verified assets may be purchased/transferred at discount. After all, that was the point in Derby concocting the inflated DRC 'market' (sic) value in the first place.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I mean...if they liquidated and set up a new company/club...well that would be one way.

On that note, Nixon reported a few weeks back or Tweeted I dunno which, but anyway that if liquidation was the outcome then they might be minded to let the new club start again in League Two for 2022/23.

I'd say theoretically acceptable, provided that it came with the correct terms and conditions, ie a - 15 for not exiting administration correctly, a two year Business Plan and any other reasonable conditions that the EFL could think of- it could certainly form the basis of an offer to Derby's new owners.

Then again no other insolvent League club has been afforded that privilege.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

34 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

On that note, Nixon reported a few weeks back or Tweeted I dunno that if liquidation was the outcome then they might be minded to let the new club start again in League Two.

I'd say theoretically acceptable, provided that it came with the correct terms and conditions- ie a - 15 for not exiting administration correctly, a two year Business Plan and any other reasonable conditions that the EFL could think of- it could certainly form the basis of an offer to Derby's new owners.

Unacceptable for me. Why should League 2 have to swallow the Championship's shit? Why should (at the time of writing) Stockport, Chesterfield, or Boreham Wood be denied promotion because Mel Morris is a dodgy shit and Quantuma couldn't find a buyer? I would be genuinely angry at the EFL for running a closed shop like that. It's the kind of rank protectionism that Parry et al are all too quick to accuse the Premier League of.

Edited February 16, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

From both an accounts/tax perspective and also EFL's F&S /FFP I'd love to understand the logic how verified assets may be purchased/transferred at discount. After all, that was the point in Derby concocting the inflated DRC 'market' (sic) value in the first place.

Just thinking out aloud, so bear with me.

We all know that P&S return is fairly closely linked to the P&L, but it is not an exact like for like, e.g. there are exclusions, allowables etc.  Although Derby might buy the ground for £x million (significantly less than £81m), and put it through the new company’s accounts as such, there might be nothing to stop EFL saying they can’t put that value in their P&S Return???

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Unacceptable for me. Why should League 2 have to swallow the Championship's shit? Why should (at the time of writing) Stockport, Chesterfield, or Boreham Wood be denied promotion because Mel Morris is a dodgy shit and Quantuma couldn't find a buyer? I would be genuinely angry at the EFL for running a closed shop like that. It's the kind of rank protectionism that Parry et al are all to quick to accuse the Premier League of.

Unacceptable to me also.  Uni bond or wherever down the ladder imho.

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Unacceptable to me also.  Uni bond or wherever down the ladder imho.

Yep, Dog & Duck and then work your way back up from there.

[Monkeh]

52 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

On that note, Nixon reported a few weeks back or Tweeted I dunno which, but anyway that if liquidation was the outcome then they might be minded to let the new club start again in League Two for 2022/23.

I'd say theoretically acceptable, provided that it came with the correct terms and conditions, ie a - 15 for not exiting administration correctly, a two year Business Plan and any other reasonable conditions that the EFL could think of- it could certainly form the basis of an offer to Derby's new owners.

Then again no other insolvent League club has been afforded that privilege.

If that happened, Stockport Hereford Chester, and the countless other clubs to be expelled from the league would take legal action

[Mr Popodopolous]

Bury were the only ones expelled I thought.

All the same I agree with a lot of what you 3 say, it'd be preferential treatment surely.

The problem is, that MPs from Derbyshire are making quite a lot of noise and there is a school of thought on the Derby forum, well there are two about this.

1) The EFL at serious risk of being replaced, perhaps accelerated by Derbygate.

2) The EFL will not survive in its present form owing to Derby and the saga.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

If he wanted money for it he'd be charging rent. £0 paid or requested since entering admin...

Missed this post, a paper rent needs adding back for the period for P&S calculations.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, lenred said:

It amazes me how so many of their fans think they can just wipe the slate clean so to speak in regards all of their past financial misdemeanours and then expect everyone else to just suck it up and crack on. It won’t wash. 

I think a sizeable number of their fans believe the - 21 across FFP and administration should be or would be the punishment.

[chinapig]

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Bury were the only ones expelled I thought.

All the same I agree with a lot of what you 3 say, it'd be preferential treatment surely.

The problem is, that MPs from Derbyshire are making quite a lot of noise and there is a school of thought on the Derby forum, well there are two about this.

1) The EFL at serious risk of being replaced, perhaps accelerated by Derbygate.

2) The EFL will not survive in its present form owing to Derby and the saga.

Given that the EFL is the 72 clubs it's hard to see what it could be replaced by exactly. More revenge fantasies from Derby fans?

Though if an independent regulator comes to pass that part of its role would pass over of course but there would still be a need for a board and executive for other purposes.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting read, not a dig.

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/dcfc-supporters-groups-meet-efl/

I like this bit...

Quote

Would Mel Morris pass the Owners’ & Directors’ Test?

* Yes – he has only been involved in 1 football club insolvency. The ruling is 2 failures to fail the test.

Mr Snrub- or is it "Mel Morris at EFL HQ when discussing the Fit and Proper Test"?

Hope Derby fans on here take it in the spirit it is intended- it's quite a light hearted take I believe.

I do kinda love though that one Football Insolvency? Crack on! It needs to happen twice to be excluded- Steve Dale, Ken Anderson could easily buy a club in theory! Mind you Risdale on the EFL Club Rep Board, Shaun Harvey who took Leeds into administration twice and did a bad financial job at Bradford- Secretary at Scarborough in the 1990s (they no longer exist so I wonder)? was appointed head of the entire EFL!!

Edited February 18, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting read, not a dig.

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/dcfc-supporters-groups-meet-efl/

I like this bit...

Mr Snrub- or is it "Mel Morris at EFL HQ when discussing the Fit and Proper Test"?

Hope Derby fans on here take it in the spirit it is intended- it's quite a light hearted take I believe.

The exasperation of the EFL seeps through every line of their answers. The amount of eye-rolling at some of those questions must have been truly incredible.

@Mr Popodopolous I would add that the following snippets should worry Derby fans. There seems to be an awful lot of work to do just to get the bids lined up and any exit approved by creditors. Qunatuma haven't even finished DD on potential owners and directors? No plan put forward to cover creditors? This is weeks or months, not days, away from being resolved.

* As well as confirming the position on those [Boro and Wycombe] claims, the administrators also need to present a plan which covers the outstanding issues including debt to MSD, ongoing use of Pride Park Stadium, repayment to HMRC and all Football & unsecured creditors in line with the EFL insolvency Policy.

* The EFL are cautious about the announcement that a preferred bidder would result in the wholesale release of conditions on the club until they see the details of the proposal to cover the above matters. Previous club administrators have presented bidders who did not fulfil EFL criteria to come out of insolvency under their rules.

* They [presumably the EFL] have had initial discussions with the prospective bidders but are yet to receive full details. They are not aware of any issues at present but need to work through the process with the Administrators. This includes receiving full details of all proposed Directors & beneficial shareholders – who all need to pass the Owners’ & Directors’ Test. They also need to see and assess the source and sufficiency of funding necessary to acquire and operate the Club which includes funds to complete the current season and for the next 2 years alongside understanding how they are going to meet the terms of the League’s Insolvency Policy.

PS. If anyone from RamsTrust reads this, please consider your use of pronouns in future minutes. I suggest using initials or abbreviated names such as "Q", "EFL" etc rather than a really quite liberal use of the word "They".

Edited February 18, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[REDOXO]

 

Any latest regarding Wycombe Wanderers claim.
 

I see DCFC administrators are inviting bids by the end of day today, but I have seen nothing in respect of a settlement with Couhig. 

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

 

Any latest regarding Wycombe Wanderers claim.
 

I see DCFC administrators are inviting bids by the end of day today, but I have seen nothing in respect of a settlement with Couhig. 

Is that 5pm cutoff, or post-match?

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

 

Any latest regarding Wycombe Wanderers claim.
 

I see DCFC administrators are inviting bids by the end of day today, but I have seen nothing in respect of a settlement with Couhig. 

Seen nothing more than you have. From what I've read Wycombe have not ever actually issued a formal claim. I think the most I have seen is that they've maybe sent in a letter before action. 

I'd expect a statement from Quantuma tomorrow or Friday (Friday has been the typical day for a flurry of statements by various parties).

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Is that 5pm cutoff, or post-match?

I'd expect it is "close of business" which in this world means 23:59.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said:

Seen nothing more than you have. From what I've read Wycombe have not ever actually issued a formal claim. I think the most I have seen is that they've maybe sent in a letter before action. 

I'd expect a statement from Quantuma tomorrow or Friday (Friday has been the typical day for a flurry of statements by various parties).

I'd expect it is "close of business" which in this world means 23:59.

Quite a big game tonight.  Lose and you’re buying a Lg1 club, win and you might think you could still be buying a Champ club.

[ExiledAjax]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Quite a big game tonight.  Lose and you’re buying a Lg1 club, win and you might think you could still be buying a Champ club.

Thankfully Reading have finally showed some competence in recent weeks. Lawrence out for three games as well, and reportedly dispatched to Dubai by Rooney, should lessen the chances of any points against Millwall, Luton and Cardiff.

Millwall are perfectly capable of winning or drawing tonight. People will point to their poor away form and Derby's strength at home, but based on our games against Derby and Millwall I'd say this game could end with any of the 3 results.

[Monkeh]

Still no formal bid,

Smells of the administrators stringing things along and now have nothing left to hide behind

[Mr Popodopolous]

There were noises- although I've not really followed any news on Derby for a few days- that preferred bidder to be named Friday?

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

There were noises- although I've not really followed any news on Derby for a few days- that preferred bidder to be named Friday?

Just based on the fact that Quantuma have asked the 3 bidders for formal bids by the end of today. Assumptions are then that those bids will be checked and briefed to the EFL tomorrow, and an announcement made on Friday.

Nothing more than assumption and presumption.

Although those bidding can be 99% certain that they are now bidding for a league 1 club.

Edited February 23, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Waconda]

9 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Just based on the fact that Quantuma have asked the 3 bidders for formal bids by the end of today. Assumptions are then that those bids will be checked and briefed to the EFL tomorrow, and an announcement made on Friday.

Nothing more than assumption and presumption.

Although those bidding can be 99% certain that they are now bidding for a league 1 club.

Still think they can stay up - Reading have just named Ince as manager !!!