BTRFTG

In the case of UK railways the infrastructure is, er, wholly state owned. From a passenger perspective it's also pointless talking about a 'national' network when over two thirds of all train journeys start or end in London and nearly 70% of passenger miles occur in the London & South East regions. And to those who relate how wonderful the operation of Europe's electrical railways forget not their design, instigation and implementation were almost single-handedly at the hands of the British. The fact the British themselves were the last to introduce such technology, decades after everybody else, had everything to do with trade unionism, the impact of post war nationalisation on rail operators and Harold Wilson's obsession with expanding the national road network. Japan, (mountains, variable weather, earthquakes and all ) is commonly lauded as having the finest rail network operating. I myself wondered at it's efficiency when travelling there. Japan Railways is mostly privately owned and in regions where the state retains a measure of ownership that's via an arm's length, autonomous private agency model. Britain's railway problems aren't economic per se, they're historic & geographic, much as using Jimmy Saville to promote rail usage hasn't aged well......

One for the future....until he wasn't.....

Is that from Parson St?

Just an accounting write off for Morris. In truth it's no write off at all. Think of something you've bought. Tell the world it's now worth 10 times as much. Sell it for purchase price. Huge write down your side but your actual loss?

Exactly, but why in the last few months would an asset lose 75% of its supposed value? Derby should be made to demonstrate a valid reason for the depreciation, given they went to such lengths to argue it was worth £81m to bolster their FFP/ P&S position when all knew that was cock and bull.

If EFL had any they'd take a big stick to Derby who having argued in court that Pride Park was 'worth' £81m has just seen it sold for £22m.

Or..... if the deal for the club doesn't go through what better a Derby fan crying crocodile tears bemoaning he tried his best to save his beloved club but where's he now going to find a property developer to take Pride Park off his hands? (Looks in the mirror .....)

.....lives in Southville.... Seriously?

From all those Manure fans spouting off you'd think it might but as they actually live in Torquay & Tunbridge Wells , not Salford, it doesn't.

Wakefield is bigger I believe and they've never had a football team in the league.

Derby fans will be heartened to learn of Clowes 'Principle Activity & Business Model' from the Holding Group's strategic report: "The group’s principal activities are the acquisition of land, buildings and property to achieve development sales. Properties are rented out whilst the group seeks appropriate opportunities and permissions to develop individual properties on the sites on which they are located. The group always considers reasonable offers for all of its properties, but has the financial strength that it will never be a forced seller. If the group considers there is substantial long-term value in a property, it will retain the asset until the right opportunity to sell or re-develop the property arises and can afford to carry all assets indefinitely" What might possibly go wrong?

And then there's the one the EFL seem to make up as they go. The EFL supposedly retain sanctions against clubs who exit administration but in having done so have gained an advantage over their peers where secured debt is not repaid in full. It's said this is usually in the form of further transfer embargoes but I don't think there's a hard and fast rule as to how these are calculated. Suppose the New Derby emerge having done (by agreement) HMRC out of £20m. Is there a time Vs cost calculation as to how this isn't 'repaid' (sic)? There couldn't be a blanket embargo as Derby wouldn't have a playing squad with which to continue, so what might be the punishment? Seems to me the EFL are as duplicitous as some of their members. For example, in response to Derby fans questioning why Derby were denied access to emergency Covid loans the EFL correctly responded they weren't, Derby didn't apply for them. Of course what the EFL didn't widely publicise was for Derby to have applied for the new loans they'd have to have consolidated all existing football related loans AND demonstrated they had means to repay the consolidated loans, which Derby clearly weren't in a position to do.

I, too, was one of those often commenting how puzzling it was that NB stopped so abruptly in matches, usually an apparent minor leg niggle (sic) whilst invariably managing to walk off unaided and available for selection next fixture. That was until I was told something back last year that shed light on his 'minor niggles' and placed everything in context. Best wait for NB to say what he wishes, if anything that is. Good player who owes us nothing and his own health, wife and family everything.

I think we're somewhere between semantics and practicality and doubtless will find out soon. No vendetta, but wasn't there something similar in the Bury case? There I believe questions were raised as to their ability to raise resolutions (seeking absolution from previous failings perhaps,) and their inability to bid for upcoming grants, both of which would fall within the normal remit of members. In previous insolvencies where grants/loans were recalled, so as to ring-fence under 'football debt' but in doing so breaking the camel's back, I think the criteria as to how and when this was done was also questioned, it appearing to be related more to status, history and popularity amongst fellow members than statute regulation. Likewise, I'm uncertain of the EFL & PL payment distribution schedules but think some of these are close season to help clubs out with cashflow. Once in administration I think these may be deferred and set aside to cover 'football related' debt where insolvency looks an imminent possibility, football acting to protect its members using the unusual circumstance of priorities administrators may not question. In Bury's case wasn't influence also sought as to how far peers would let them fall down the pyramid (which as you know isn't cut and dried in FA regulation and historically has been applied to suit - the old 'have to apply AND be accepted ploy'?) Derby may retain a voting share, point being are they able to exercise it and, if do, for what? Are they automatically entitled to draw down on grants and distributions which through membership they would normally have access? If they are that's presumably through the administrators, though as I highlighted is that proven as from the EFL's terse comments at the weekend that doesn't appear to be a given? One supposes should Derby directors retain the vote this might that be exercised with the expressed authority of the administrators, though from what I've heard at City such EFL matters tend to be decided at pace either via electronic exchange or emergency meeting, neither of which leave leeway for delayed 3rd party authorizations. If administrators are not recognised to vote (though the club retains a voting share,) effectively Derby are a member in name only, in limbo, up the creek without a paddle at EFL's mercy. So yes, that would have serious consequences should that be the case. The administrators (should) wear many hats so strikes me the EFL could run into problems should a challenged yet exercised vote within their structure be of disbenefit to creditors. You've already highlighted areas which are impacted once entering administration where membership 'rights' are effectively denied but which return once exiting administration. I'm trying to find the previous guidance, though think much of that produced by the EFL is done on the fly, so it may have changed case by case.

I made clear they hadn't been expelled. I do believe I've previously seen that their membership rights are severly curtailed once entering administration. They hold a share, but that's about it. For example I don't believe they are able to vote or stand for election on any EFL board or committee, nor may their administrators. The administrators don't take beneficial ownership of the company they administer, they administer on behalf of that owner, their creditors and debtors. Derby remain entitled to distributions via the EFL but I believe the EFL maintain the right to withhold or distribute should they believe the administrators are not acting in terms of the priorities they should. The statement yesterday and the EFL stepping in as they are suggests they did not believe the administrators are acting as they should. For example, there was nothing in the regulation for the EFL to demand the Administrators run everything past them first, but they have and can. They can amend at will, require no emergency endorsement via other members and that's what they just done.

I think the test failed as although Derby cited a 'With Profits' figure based on non assured, impaired accounts, the clever lawyers managed to extract a range of DRC values based on the point I made, that nobody ever rebuilds as was, such there was a consideration for a DRC figure for what most likely would have been a replacement. The judgement looked at the lower and higher DRCs and the midpoint was slightly higher than the 'With Profits' figure Derby had used, therefore had to conclude the EFL hadn't proven the charge the stadium was over valued, though any sensible person knows that DRC is NOT a realistic market valuation, it's for accountancy and risk only. Derby won on semantics, not fact. For stuff like commercial buildings 'With Profits' is a very reliable measure, hence buildings values fluctuate dependant upon the quality of leases issued against them.

If you care to scroll back many pages I've explained several times in detail as to how the £81m figure was derived. In brief, it wasn't a market value as most imagine , rather a Depreciated Replacement Cost assessment (that wholly different from any mortgage based assessment.) DRCs are used for unusual, bespoke assets - visit the RICS website where they've dozens of technical papers explaining where these are appropriate and how they function. It's basically how much would it cost to rebuild what I've got? Problem being nobody ever bothers to rebuild as was, never happens as rather you'd always go for something more modern. It works for accounting and insurance purposes and also, as Morris exploited, to get around EFL FFP/P&S policy.

Simply an FFP / P&S transaction. The football club show a profit (difference between on book and inflated sale,) that year, the club's holding company loaned the money (sic) to the stadium company to 'buy' the stadium such as they were all under the same control it's a circular transaction. In theory the club's holding company is owed but added value was never there in the first place. Imagine selling a fine bottle of wine to your better half for quadruple it's market value, paid for with monies you've loaned. From a household perspective how much wealthier are you?

I think it best to wait until anything is officially announced. Baker's health, for him and his family, is paramount. I know City have handled this brilliantly to date, it's about him and his wellbeing, not money.

Understand where you are coming from but I believe the EFL view membership as somewhat more than simply holding a (largely symbolic) share. Recall one can't gift or pass the share to anyone (that requires EFL approval,) when exiting the EFL either way one has to cede the share (no choice in the matter,) and the share may be removed via the expulsion process. Ultimately Derby may have to be expelled using that process but I believe buried amongst the nebulous discretionary clauses the EFL love, that once in administration one's membership (though not technically share at that point,) is removed. From yesterday's statement I'm not sure the EFL might think Q 'fit and proper' but that's moot given, if I remember correctly, Q will have no power or influence within the EFL membership. Consider also the extraordinary powers the EFL exerted yesterday, setting mandatory constraints on how the administrators MUST act. Wouldn't happen elsewhere in business but I think they are able to do so under the membership powers (i.e. if you don't like it you don't have to be a member of this group.)

I think that's right, it was the recovery gap between games. Odd when one considers I could play several games a day at that age but that reduced to weekly within a few years....post match alcohol recovery being the issue....

As per my comment yesterday re Dylan Williams, League rules quickly prevent clubs fielding first teams comprised of very young kids. Trainees and scholars may only play a handful of first team games before they MUST be issued full adult contracts. There are also limits on the number of trainees and scholars that may appear in the first team at the same time (it isn't many). Without offering adult contracts you'd need hundred of kids to get through a season.

I can't find it at present but think the EFL issued a few years back one of their enhanced guidance notes (they've many,) which filled in the gaps left by badly worded policy re administration events. I seem to recall for administration this entailed an amended procedure and timeline from the stated expulsion process designed for malpractice (the general regs assumed clubs heading for insolvency would do the decent thing and resign.) I think in administration an additional prior notice to the formal expulsion notice is issued but it has a similar effect, namely that it isn't a suspension of the threat to remove membership, rather membership is revoked immediately but not ratified within a given timeframe (as would be the case in explusion.) The change sounded moot but there were technical reasons for it working that way round and they seemed to make sense at the time. For example, club officials have no authority to act in any capacity, that having been passed to the administrators, such they couldn't stand for EFL election or continue to sit on EFL voting committees whilst administration remained active. It eliminated any risk that clubs might seek to use marginal voting influence to their own advantage, not the good of the game. Administrators couldn't stand or vote on clubs behalf as, de facto, they're independent and not EFL members, a sort of Catch 22. I think there was also something about clubs/administrators not having automatic rights to payment schedules, that these moved to the discretion of the EFL. Monies would still be payable through the administration period(and were where administrators were playing ball,) though the EFL could step in and manage themselves such they would be able to ensure the football side hierarchy of payment never lost out. Sounded wholly contrary to common law but that's football and association membership for you.

My understanding is once served notice they are technically expelled from the EFL and their share suspended (they lose rights over voting et al,) but may continue operating until as confirmation of their expulsion is deferred until voted by the board, this gives them a chance to put things right. Expulsion does have a number of knock on impacts on other areas.

Technically, Derby are no longer a member post entering administration.