Derby County

[chinapig]

I'm becoming a little confused (my default setting admittedly!).

I saw a statement from the EFL that Derby had submitted their revised accounts before the deadline but the BBC reported that they had yet to be submitted. Though they may have meant submitted to Companies House perhaps.

As to the agreed points deduction I have not seen any unequivocal statement that Derby had in fact agreed it and saw a report elsewhere that it now has to be negotiated with the administrators, who are unlikely to agree to it.

We now have a bland statement from the EFL following administration but the facts of the case are still not clear - at least to me.

[thatchersgold]

5 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm becoming a little confused (my default setting admittedly!).

I saw a statement from the EFL that Derby had submitted their revised accounts before the deadline but the BBC reported that they had yet to be submitted. Though they may have meant submitted to Companies House perhaps.

As to the agreed points deduction I have not seen any unequivocal statement that Derby had in fact agreed it and saw a report elsewhere that it now has to be negotiated with the administrators, who are unlikely to agree to it.

We now have a bland statement from the EFL following administration but the facts of the case are still not clear - at least to me.

Was on sky sports just over a week ago saying they had agreed a reduced 9point deduction, the efl often accept as it saves on court costs etc but if not agreed can actually be more points 

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm becoming a little confused (my default setting admittedly!).

I saw a statement from the EFL that Derby had submitted their revised accounts before the deadline but the BBC reported that they had yet to be submitted. Though they may have meant submitted to Companies House perhaps.

As to the agreed points deduction I have not seen any unequivocal statement that Derby had in fact agreed it and saw a report elsewhere that it now has to be negotiated with the administrators, who are unlikely to agree to it.

We now have a bland statement from the EFL following administration but the facts of the case are still not clear - at least to me.

Think what MM said was they had sent their proposed accounts / FFP submissions, but EFL were still having ongoing discussion with them about the content.

[Davefevs]

From BBC:

The extent of losses beyond 2018 is not known because accounts are still to be published following an agreement between Derby and HMRC that they could be held back until the EFL case was concluded. 

But it is accepted by all parties they contain further significant losses.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58641014

[Davefevs]

In addition to the obvious financial issues, there are also significant compensation payments to former manager Phillip Cocu and defender Richard Keogh to pay.

Cocu was dismissed in November 2020, with an estimated payout of £4m due. Keogh won his appeal in May against his dismissal for misconduct, which cost Derby another £2.3m.

And then there is Rooney.

Although the bulk of his wages are paid by club sponsor 32Red, in his recent BBC interview in which he apologised to fans, Morris said the club were paying Rooney "a competitive salary".

Given his status as a former England captain and his country's record goalscorer, it is assumed Rooney's wages are high.

The 35-year-old said at the weekend he had no intention to quit. His contract runs to the summer of 2023.

is the bit in bold above true?  Thought we’d been told differently.  More cheating!

[Bristol Rob]

I thought it was known that 32 were covering his wages (thus his squad number), what I could never understand was how that fitted in with 3rd party ownership.

[Monkeh]

35 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

In addition to the obvious financial issues, there are also significant compensation payments to former manager Phillip Cocu and defender Richard Keogh to pay.

Cocu was dismissed in November 2020, with an estimated payout of £4m due. Keogh won his appeal in May against his dismissal for misconduct, which cost Derby another £2.3m.

And then there is Rooney.

Although the bulk of his wages are paid by club sponsor 32Red, in his recent BBC interview in which he apologised to fans, Morris said the club were paying Rooney "a competitive salary".

Given his status as a former England captain and his country's record goalscorer, it is assumed Rooney's wages are high.

The 35-year-old said at the weekend he had no intention to quit. His contract runs to the summer of 2023.

is the bit in bold above true?  Thought we’d been told differently.  More cheating!

Doesn't that equate to third party ownership?

[Hxj]

14 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Doesn't that equate to third party ownership?

No.

Rooney wassn't being paid by 32Red.  As an example 32Red paid DCFC extra sponsorship of £25k a week when Rooney joined.  DCFC could then afford to pay Rooney an extra £20k a week salary.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

I'm becoming a little confused (my default setting admittedly!).

I saw a statement from the EFL that Derby had submitted their revised accounts before the deadline but the BBC reported that they had yet to be submitted. Though they may have meant submitted to Companies House perhaps.

As to the agreed points deduction I have not seen any unequivocal statement that Derby had in fact agreed it and saw a report elsewhere that it now has to be negotiated with the administrators, who are unlikely to agree to it.

We now have a bland statement from the EFL following administration but the facts of the case are still not clear - at least to me.

 

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Think what MM said was they had sent their proposed accounts / FFP submissions, but EFL were still having ongoing discussion with them about the content.

As I understand it.

Those accounts to which he was referring were to 2018, ie the 3 years to 2018.

These using the EFL's preferred method or restatement or whatever, showed a loss of £4m or that equated to 4 points- he was a bit vague on the precise nature.

That's separate to anything thereafter, ie 2019 and beyond- but the proposed settlement- wholly separate for the -12 into admin- was:

• Initial deduction instantly applied of 9 points
• A further 3 points suspended
• A business plan- as part of the current and ongoing P&S requirements to ensure compliance at all times.

This therefore I believe would be there to cover it all, everything up to the present- an all in one approach.

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

though it may not necessarily follow he is the beneficial owner.

He's on Companies House as the owner, that will do for me 

 

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I've seen elsewhere suggestion that funding may have come from him and other parties, excluding MSD.

Depends which funding - if the stadium purchase there appears to have been no funding - it was left outstanding at June 2018.  If it has been funded by Morris now then I still don't get how the club ended up in Administration.

It was MSD who legally put the club into Administration, so they are still owed money by either the Stadium Group or the Football Group.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, Monkeh said:

They can't and would get a further harsher points deduction,

But as they are ****** anyway may as well accept it,

Although by the time this is all sorted there is a very real chance of Derby being a league 2 or even a non league club, that's how serious it is

We say this but the administrators were very bullish today, from snippets that I've read.

1. No player sales intended in Jan.
2. In fact, the hope is to strengthen the team.
3. They would like Pride Park and Moor Farm returned to the club's ownership.
4. Wages? We are confident of borrowing cash to help to fund it.

They did though from what I've read, concede that -12 likely wouldn't be the end of the deductions.

[Monkeh]

13 minutes ago, Hxj said:

No.

Rooney wassn't being paid by 32Red.  As an example 32Red paid DCFC extra sponsorship of £25k a week when Rooney joined.  DCFC could then afford to pay Rooney an extra £20k a week salary.

That's third party ownership,

Derby didn't pay his wages a 3rd party did through creative accounting 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, BetterRedThanBlue said:

Going onto a point raised by @BTRFTG is there any evidence that derby have paid rent on the stadium? Or is it contained in accounts that aren't on companies House?

Because surely if no rent has been paid that would incur an additional penalty?

From a quick look, I see no rent payments received- which goes against what we see on Reading's year it was there before being resold, Birmingham's Stadium company, Aston Villa's stadium company- sure Sheffield 3 Limited when released will also show similar.

Derby's though- Gellaw Newco 202, zero evidence of rent payments. If the other accounts ever released then surely this would shed more light.

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

But is there any evidence rent has ever been paid? It's not in the investment holding accounts and Gellaw 203 (I hope you're sitting down,) have yet to file accounts which are long overdue.

As you say, £1.1m per season in rent would give nowhere near a valuation of £81m for the stadium.

Yep. Along with:

1. Sevco 5112
2. The Club- ie Derby County Football Club Limited
3. Club DCFC
4. The Derby County FC Academy Limited
5. Stadia DCFC

[Hxj]

5 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Derby didn't pay his wages a 3rd party did through creative accounting 

Never imagined seeing the words "Derby", "Creative" and "Accounting" in a post on here 

[Davefevs]

51 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I thought it was known that 32 were covering his wages (thus his squad number), what I could never understand was how that fitted in with 3rd party ownership.

42 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Doesn't that equate to third party ownership?

24 minutes ago, Hxj said:

No.

Rooney wassn't being paid by 32Red.  As an example 32Red paid DCFC extra sponsorship of £25k a week when Rooney joined.  DCFC could then afford to pay Rooney an extra £20k a week salary.

That was what I understood too….so either sloppy from BBC, or dodgy from Derby!!!

[Bristol Rob]

Wonder how many other players wages are offset by creative sponsorship....

Just that with a review underway in to how betting companies are advertising it might soon be a grey area.

[Mr Popodopolous]

John Percy has said that the administrators will reluctantly accept the additional 9 points.

Let's hope that the business plan remains in play as well. No free passes!!

Edited September 23, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

John Percy has said that the administrators will reluctantly accept the additional 9 points.

I wondered whether they were referring more to the proposed Business Plan not being acceptable (needing further negotiation) rather than the points….but that was only my thinking based on “surely they aren’t taking the pi$$ already”!

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

I wondered whether they were referring more to the proposed Business Plan not being acceptable (needing further negotiation) rather than the points….but that was only my thinking based on “surely they aren’t taking the pi$$ already”!

Yep, that could have been the sticking point.

As I've said before, objectively speaking it should be fairly easy to calculate- they can spend/lose whatever they have remaining in terms of their headroom. ie

a )£39m-x=Permitted remaining expenditure in 2021/22 under business plan.

or

b) Losses reset to £13m per season ie aggregate for T-1 and T-2 is £26m-x=remaining expenditure in 2021/22 under business plan,

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yep, that could have been the sticking point.

As I've said before, objectively speaking it should be fairly easy to calculate- they can spend/lose whatever they have remaining in terms of their headroom. ie

a )£39m-x=Permitted remaining expenditure in 2021/22 under business plan.

or

b) Losses reset to £13m per season ie aggregate for T-1 and T-2 is £26m-x=remaining expenditure in 2021/22 under business plan,

I guess the issue might be that they’ve already bust the £39m???

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I guess the issue might be that they’ve already bust the £39m???

Even to this year??

In which case, a business plan would require a club to sell before loans or frees in. They would have further financial targets to hit if that's the case or potentially face further punishments- but I assume a business plan would be to make sure they don't exceed once again. If they are on track to exceed even that then it's worse than I thought.

What I would like to see- for both Derby and Reading when these deductions are finalised, ie the P&S ones is some kind of written reasons for agreed settlement. Which periods they broke in, by how much etc- would be illuminating.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Even to this year??

In which case, a business plan would require sell before loans or frees in. They would have further financial targets to hit if that's the case or potentially face further punishments- but I assume a business plan would be to make sure they don't exceed once again.

£39m is of course a 3 year period….so £13m this season is quite easy to bust if Mel was paying in £1.5m per month

So I can see why Administration team want to agree business plan, not Morris prior to Administration.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Davefevs

[ExiledAjax]

On the Rooney/32Red thing. It's bit weird, and I don't like the precedent it kind of sets...but I can't see how it is something they should be punished for. Is it so different from what many, many clubs (including our own) do (or used to do) with inviting local businesses to sponsor certain players? The profile of the player and the sums involved might be bigger, but the principle is surely the same - that the club get money to pay for a player, and the business gets the kudos of being associated with that player. That Rooney wore 32 as part of it is just an element of the agreed contract.

Perhaps there is an argument that if the 32Red 'sponsorship' was the defining reason that allowed Derby to sign him, and that without it he would not have signed, then maybe there are more questions to ask...but I suspect it would still be broadly ok.

I'm also really not sure that it is true 'third-party ownership' as we understand it, and as we have seen used in S. America, and at times in high profile cases like Tevez and Mascherano. To my knowledge 32Red have at no point owned any of the economic benefit of Rooney's contract. For example had he been sold they wouldn't have benefited from that sale, and got no benefit from the licensing of Rooney's image rights or other economic assets. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't like it, especially given the industry that 32Red are in, but I'm not sure this is the thing to be trying to punish Derby over. 

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

On the Rooney/32Red thing. It's bit weird, and I don't like the precedent it kind of sets...but I can't see how it is something they should be punished for. Is it so different from what many, many clubs (including our own) do (or used to do) with inviting local businesses to sponsor certain players? The profile of the player and the sums involved might be bigger, but the principle is surely the same - that the club get money to pay for a player, and the business gets the kudos of being associated with that player. That Rooney wore 32 as part of it is just an element of the agreed contract.

Perhaps there is an argument that if the 32Red 'sponsorship' was the defining reason that allowed Derby to sign him, and that without it he would not have signed, then maybe there are more questions to ask...but I suspect it would still be broadly ok.

I'm also really not sure that it is true 'third-party ownership' as we understand it, and as we have seen used in S. America, and at times in high profile cases like Tevez and Mascherano. To my knowledge 32Red have at no point owned any of the economic benefit of Rooney's contract. For example had he been sold they wouldn't have benefited from that sale, and got no benefit from the licensing of Rooney's image rights or other economic assets. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't like it, especially given the industry that 32Red are in, but I'm not sure this is the thing to be trying to punish Derby over. 

It’s a very good point.  Assuming Rooney doesn’t get PAYE from 32Red, then I don’t care.  The BBC article alludes differently.  Of course, as I stated, might’ve been sloppy writing.  But if 32Red are paying him, then that portion of his wages won’t be going through Derby’s books….and that feels wrong (or other more appropriate  word!).

I had more of the feeling of the early pro/am rugby days, player x employed by the sponsoring company as a way of avoiding him having to be paid fully by the semi-professional rugby club.  My mate was paid by one of Bath RFC’s sponsors to be a glorified milk-man by day, Premiership rugby player by night.  I’m not sure a battery powered milk float had enough welly to carry his bulk around.

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We say this but the administrators were very bullish today, from snippets that I've read.

1. No player sales intended in Jan.
2. In fact, the hope is to strengthen the team.
3. They would like Pride Park and Moor Farm returned to the club's ownership.
4. Wages? We are confident of borrowing cash to help to fund it.

They did though from what I've read, concede that -12 likely wouldn't be the end of the deductions.

So their responsibility is to the creditors yet they intend to pass up the opportunity to raise money through sales, in fact spend on new signings thus adding to the wage bill, and to borrow to pay those wages?

In any event who is going to lend substantial sums to a club whose only asset is players, the value of which they refuse to realise?

I don't see how the creditors benefit from this, though I am no expert of course.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

It’s a very good point.  Assuming Rooney doesn’t get PAYE from 32Red, then I don’t care.  The BBC article alludes differently.  Of course, as I stated, might’ve been sloppy writing.  But if 32Red are paying him, then that portion of his wages won’t be going through Derby’s books….and that feels wrong (or other more appropriate  word!).

I had more of the feeling of the early pro/am rugby days, player x employed by the sponsoring company as a way of avoiding him having to be paid fully by the semi-professional rugby club.  My mate was paid by one of Bath RFC’s sponsors to be a glorified milk-man by day, Premiership rugby player by night.  I’m not sure a battery powered milk float had enough welly to carry his bulk around.

I don't think it is this. I think it is sloppy wording on the BBC's part. There's no doubt the Derby/Rooney/32Red deal was a bit grubby, perhaps 'creative', but it would seem that it wasn't the case that Rooney's wages were being paid directly by 32Red. This article - https://www.sportspromedia.com/interviews/why-32red-is-betting-big-on-wayne-rooney/ - sets it out quite well, complete with ludicrously worded quotes from people in the know. The key line is:

"As for claims 32Red is making a mockery of financial fair play (FFP) by paying Rooney’s weekly wages, reported to be around UK£90,000 (US$109,000) a week?

“To be clear, 32Red did not sign Wayne Rooney and 32Red is not paying Wayne Rooney’s wages. Our agreement is solely with Derby County,” Banbury [Neil Banbury, 32Red’s general manager] asserts.

“Our commercial agreement with Derby is sensitive, but it is a significant additional investment on top of our original sponsorship agreement with the club.”"

Apparently the signing did lead to the bigger sponsorship deal, Banbury admits that when he says "“When Derby told us they were signing Rooney, we again decided to deepen our relationship with the club."" but I'd be amazed if even Morris et al were stupid enough to have a concrete flow of cash from 32Red to Rooney. 

As I said, it's shady, 'creative', and I certainly would not want Bristol City to do similar...but from what I know, I doubt it is something Derby can be punished for as part of all that they are currently going through.

Edited September 23, 2021 by ExiledAjax

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We say this but the administrators were very bullish today, from snippets that I've read.

1. No player sales intended in Jan.
2. In fact, the hope is to strengthen the team.
3. They would like Pride Park and Moor Farm returned to the club's ownership.
4. Wages? We are confident of borrowing cash to help to fund it.

They did though from what I've read, concede that -12 likely wouldn't be the end of the deductions.

Most of the press conference is available on BBC Sounds - Ian Skye - Steve Jordan sits in (23/09/2021) - BBC Sounds it starts just after 11 am.

My views are:

1.  This was part of a PR campaign.

2.  No one has expressed firm interest.

3.  It would never be good to admit that you have to sell players in January.

4.  Funding the £5 million or so required to get the club to January is not guaranteed.

5.  In fact nothing is guaranteed.

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I don't think it is this. I think it is sloppy wording on the BBC's part. There's no doubt the Derby/Rooney/32Red deal was a bit grubby, perhaps 'creative', but it would seem that it wasn't the case that Rooney's wages were being paid directly by 32Red. This article - https://www.sportspromedia.com/interviews/why-32red-is-betting-big-on-wayne-rooney/ - sets it out quite well, complete with ludicrously worded quotes from people in the know. The key line is:

"As for claims 32Red is making a mockery of financial fair play (FFP) by paying Rooney’s weekly wages, reported to be around UK£90,000 (US$109,000) a week?

“To be clear, 32Red did not sign Wayne Rooney and 32Red is not paying Wayne Rooney’s wages. Our agreement is solely with Derby County,” Banbury [Neil Banbury, 32Red’s general manager] asserts.

“Our commercial agreement with Derby is sensitive, but it is a significant additional investment on top of our original sponsorship agreement with the club.”"

Apparently the signing did lead to the bigger sponsorship deal, Banbury admits that when he says "“When Derby told us they were signing Rooney, we again decided to deepen our relationship with the club."" but I'd be amazed if even Morris et al were stupid enough to have a concrete flow of cash from 32Red to Rooney. 

As I said, it's shady, 'creative', and I certainly would not want Bristol City to do similar...but from what I know, I doubt it is something Derby can be punished for as part of all that they are currently going through.

Agree, was my understanding too.

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Most of the press conference is available on BBC Sounds - Ian Skye - Steve Jordan sits in (23/09/2021) - BBC Sounds it starts just after 11 am.

My views are:

1.  This was part of a PR campaign.

2.  No one has expressed firm interest.

3.  It would never be good to admit that you have to sell players in January.

4.  Funding the £5 million or so required to get the club to January is not guaranteed.

5.  In fact nothing is guaranteed.

Just after the Jean Genie - he’s outrageous, he screams and he bawls - could be singing about Mel Morris!!!

[Ska Junkie]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We say this but the administrators were very bullish today, from snippets that I've read.

1. No player sales intended in Jan.
2. In fact, the hope is to strengthen the team.
3. They would like Pride Park and Moor Farm returned to the club's ownership.
4. Wages? We are confident of borrowing cash to help to fund it.

They did though from what I've read, concede that -12 likely wouldn't be the end of the deductions.

How on earth can a business in administration borrow money? 

[chinapig]

Good section with Kieran Maguire in todays' Football Weekly Extra podcast:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/audio/2021/sep/23/derby-county-carabao-cup-football-weekly-extra-podcast

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

How on earth can a business in administration borrow money? 

Agreed, elements of PR probably but yeah- just going on snippets I read- most of those claims I picked up seem fanciful thusfar.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

He's on Companies House as the owner, that will do for me 

 

Depends which funding - if the stadium purchase there appears to have been no funding - it was left outstanding at June 2018.  If it has been funded by Morris now then I still don't get how the club ended up in Administration.

It was MSD who legally put the club into Administration, so they are still owed money by either the Stadium Group or the Football Group.

As to ownership, the only thing I could see was the Freehold Stadium is owned by Gellaw Newco 202 (102 having been wound up.) As I highlighted in that company's incorporation there is but one share and Director, Melvyn Morris, but it doesn't automatically follow he's the beneficial owner, he simply has power to run that company.

Now you'll have noted there are two charges against the assets held by that company, one from MSD for the operational cashflow we know about, there's also the mysterious 'Floating Charge' in respect of RAMS INVESTMENT LTD. The charge (for intangibles as well as fixed assets,) is listed in the financial documents but as these haven't been filed it's value is, well, you tell me? Now the directors of that company are names with which I'm unfamiliar and Melvyn Morris isn't one of them.

My understanding is the money for the initial and subsequent development of Pride Park (NB there were other divested commercial elements at play,) was partly Morris but also mates of his, which may explain the floating charge via RAMS INVESTMENT. The MSD charge is later I think and was for cashflow to stop the shebang folding.

Could be the Floating Charge is minimal and exists wholly to make things difficult should it be necessary to divvy up assets, the problem as you know is there are so many entities few of whom have lately published accounts, it'll take a forensic accountant to go through all company records (if there are any,) to find out what's been going on?

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 hours ago, Hxj said:

All agreed.

 

Unlikely.  The stadium sale was in 2018. 

The MSD Charges were put in place in August and November 2020.  So it looks like the MSD money was used to fund cash flow across all entities not for payment for the stadium.

 

It may not have paid anything.

 

Exactly.  Along with Cocu and Keogh and the late payment of transfer fees.

The alternative is that they have burnt through £81 million cash in roughly three years.  I could have paid off all the debts and still had a great time with the remaining £20 million or so .......... 

They seem to have it both ways- their own- audited accounts do show that 

2018 Derby Accounts- Cash Flow

2018 Sevco 5112 Accounts- Cash Flow

Seems like they do burn through a lot of cash...yet.

2018 Derby Accounts- Debtors

Seems to be no reference to it in Sevco 5112 Limited debtors- guess it was the club specifically who 'sold' the ground. Obviously Amortisation and Depreciation are non-cash expenses but have to wonder the cash position in the following years!!

A lot of cash though, the two years before Covid as well. The club can't have been paid though, surely...

SwissRamble- yes they do seem to burn through a lot of cash or have done under Mel...

Edited September 23, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

1 minute ago, BTRFTG said:

As to ownership

I got my information from the 'PSC' tab on Companies House.  Rams Investment is the vehicle used by Gabay, more interesting than Morris , he's facing prison time for a German tax fraud.

[BTRFTG]

2 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I got my information from the 'PSC' tab on Companies House.  Rams Investment is the vehicle used by Gabay, more interesting than Morris , he's facing prison time for a German tax fraud.

Ah, so any idea the scale of the charge and any of those blank boxes showing what it was for and what it might take to remove it?

[BTRFTG]

9 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I got my information from the 'PSC' tab on Companies House.  Rams Investment is the vehicle used by Gabay, more interesting than Morris , he's facing prison time for a German tax fraud.

Just looked it up.

So for all we know Melvyn Morris, whilst appearing on paper to own the stadium, might actually own little more than a £3k liability beyond the over-inflated value of that asset on Gellaw's accounts, all residual value being absorbed by the MSD and Gabay Charges?

 

[Hxj]

17 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

so any idea the scale of the charge

It is rumoured that there is nothing outstanding, but it hasn't been removed which doesn't make sense.

 

7 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

So for all we know Melvyn Morris, whilst appearing on paper to own the stadium, might actually own little more than a £3k liability beyond the over-inflated value of that asset on Gellaw's accounts, all residual value being absorbed by the MSD and Gabay Charges?

Pedant alert on

Morris owns a company worth nothing which happens to own the stadium and have debts which can fairly be assumed to exceed the realisable value of the stadium.  The stadium is also subject to a direct charge from MSD so cannot be transferred without that debt being repaid or MSD agreeing otherwise.

Pedant alert off

 

[chinapig]

I see Wayne Rooney's Derby County's Wayne Rooney is not happy with Honest Mel Morris, former hero of Derby fans throughout the land

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/sep/23/derbys-wayne-rooney-hits-out-at-disrespectful-former-owner-mel-morris

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

I don't think it is this. I think it is sloppy wording on the BBC's part. There's no doubt the Derby/Rooney/32Red deal was a bit grubby, perhaps 'creative', but it would seem that it wasn't the case that Rooney's wages were being paid directly by 32Red. This article - https://www.sportspromedia.com/interviews/why-32red-is-betting-big-on-wayne-rooney/ - sets it out quite well, complete with ludicrously worded quotes from people in the know. The key line is:

"As for claims 32Red is making a mockery of financial fair play (FFP) by paying Rooney’s weekly wages, reported to be around UK£90,000 (US$109,000) a week?

“To be clear, 32Red did not sign Wayne Rooney and 32Red is not paying Wayne Rooney’s wages. Our agreement is solely with Derby County,” Banbury [Neil Banbury, 32Red’s general manager] asserts.

“Our commercial agreement with Derby is sensitive, but it is a significant additional investment on top of our original sponsorship agreement with the club.”"

Apparently the signing did lead to the bigger sponsorship deal, Banbury admits that when he says "“When Derby told us they were signing Rooney, we again decided to deepen our relationship with the club."" but I'd be amazed if even Morris et al were stupid enough to have a concrete flow of cash from 32Red to Rooney. 

As I said, it's shady, 'creative', and I certainly would not want Bristol City to do similar...but from what I know, I doubt it is something Derby can be punished for as part of all that they are currently going through.

Just listening to it…..more than one media person suggesting Rooney paid by more than just Derby!

 

1 hour ago, Ska Junkie said:

How on earth can a business in administration borrow money? 

because selling it as a football club still in the league might return a better result than just winding it up I guess.

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Just listening to it…..more than one media person suggesting Rooney paid by more than just Derby

The Guardian podcast? I've not got to it yet.

I mean if he was being paid in more "creative" ways then the book should be thrown at them with the full force of the law.

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Ska Junkie said:

How on earth can a business in administration borrow money? 

It is never impossible to borrow money - the lender will be looking to make a return to cover the risk - I have a contact who can source funds for a business with no security and a rate of around 4% a month plus fees ...

Edited September 23, 2021 by Hxj

[chinapig]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

because selling it as a football club still in the league might return a better result than just winding it up I guess.

But a high risk you will never get your money back given the existing level of debt?

[Ska Junkie]

Just now, Hxj said:

It is never impossible to borrow money - the lender will be looking to make a return to cover the risk - I have a contact who can source funds for a business with no security and a rate of around 3% a month

Thanks Hxj. Surely it would be one hell of a risk to lend Derby money at the moment? Why would any financial institution be remotely interested?

I know if an individual enters an IVA, it's prohibitively expensive to borrow money, if you could borrow any at all, so the 3% mention seems madness with the associated risks.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The Guardian podcast? I've not got to it yet.

I mean if he was being paid in more "creative" ways then the book should be thrown at them with the full force of the law.

BBC Radio Derby Adminstrators Conference….

 

[BTRFTG]

8 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It is rumoured that there is nothing outstanding, but it hasn't been removed which doesn't make sense.

Morris owns a company worth nothing

 

Any idea what breakdown of the creditors falling within one year are, in particular the 'trade' creditors. I think those were listed at £7m but strikes me as high if that is rates/maintenance. Might the supposed stadium costs also have included disguised, advance elements of 'lease income' that are paid back to, say, MSD?

[Hxj]

1 minute ago, Ska Junkie said:

Surely it would be one hell of a risk to lend Derby money at the moment? Why would any financial institution be remotely interested?

It works like this:

You want to borrow £100,000 cash for a year

I lend you £180,000 and charge you fees and interest of £80,000 in advance.

You need to pay me £180,000 within a year, or my debt collectors pay you a visit, failing that they pay your family a visit.

[Davefevs]

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Yep, Kieran first flagged it in Spring 2018- inclusion of all the revenue from the subsidaries namely Club DCFC Limited, Derby County FC Academy Limited and Stadia DCFC Limited in the club accounts but all the costs in Sevco 5112 Limited- and I guess the costs might have been hidden in those slimmed down accounts too.

Plus pf course the bit about 110 staff- true and fair presentation is required under FRS 102? Or maybe it all computes out as it's all there under Sevco 5112 Limited in the end.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

P&S ones is some kind of written reasons for agreed settlement.

Yep - brief and uninformative - see 210708---efl-derby-county---agreed-decision-signed.pdf

Incidentally Swindon have also been done on the first of many offences - 210915--efl-v-swindon-town---agreed-decision--signed.pdf

[REDOXO]

8 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It works like this:

You want to borrow £100,000 cash for a year

I lend you £180,000 and charge you fees and interest of £80,000 in advance.

You need to pay me £180,000 within a year, or my debt collectors pay you a visit, failing that they pay your family a visit.

Like the anecdote. The non knee cap version would be to be top of the creditors list I guess. 
 

Good luck with your club. As much as people are wound up about this most accept that the supporters are pretty helpless. It seems the Mel til I die contingent are diminishing fast Which I think helps with the image. 

Hey from a club that has spent a lot of time in divvy three, it can have its compensations, if the administrator can get the club sorted enough for an interested party. 
 

 

 

[chinapig]

On the Derby forum there are still people arguing for an appeal on force majeure grounds.

[Hxj]

4 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Good luck with your club.

mmmm - I think that some on here are confused!

[Hxj]

14 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yep, Kieran first flagged it in Spring 2018

I'm not sure that I agree with his analysis without further detail.

All Academy costs are outside FFP, so transferring Academy Staff and Players to the Academy company is not in itself an issue for me.  That said 110 seems high but City's are at least 50.

[Mr Popodopolous]

24 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I'm not sure that I agree with his analysis without further detail.

All Academy costs are outside FFP, so transferring Academy Staff and Players to the Academy company is not in itself an issue for me.  That said 110 seems high but City's are at least 50.

Possible that I'm making too much of it tbh, I do sometimes.

Derby in fairness have a Cat A academy I believe so that could account for the staff numbers.

[REDOXO]

30 minutes ago, Hxj said:

mmmm - I think that some on here are confused!

Mmm if you are not. Derby fan then clearly I was?!

[Hxj]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

tbh, I do sometimes

[Hxj]

6 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

then clearly I was?!

With 10k posts over 20 years I assumed otherwise!

Enjoy League 2 

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

It is never impossible to borrow money - the lender will be looking to make a return to cover the risk - I have a contact who can source funds for a business with no security and a rate of around 4% a month plus fees ...

At the risk of sounding a conspiracist your contact wasn't 'au fait' with Richard Keogh's kneecaps perchance? 

[Hxj]

5 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

At the risk of sounding a conspiracist your contact wasn't 'au fait' with Richard Keogh's kneecaps perchance? 

I plead the fifth!

Edited September 23, 2021 by Hxj

[REDOXO]

9 minutes ago, Hxj said:

With 10k posts over 20 years I assumed otherwise!

Enjoy League 2 

Yes Now they have those natty little crowns etc, its not immediately obvious! However welcome to OTIB circa 2001

[CyderInACan]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

It works like this:

You want to borrow £100,000 cash for a year

I lend you £180,000 and charge you fees and interest of £80,000 in advance.

You need to pay me £180,000 within a year, or my debt collectors pay you a visit, failing that they pay your family a visit.

Sounds like Mel might’ve initially bought the ground from Brighthouse down East St. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

The force majeur argument looks suspect to me.

It opens the floodgates if allowed to stand. No accounts post June 2018 and the general integrity of the League, well if Derby's administration appeal allowed to stand then many clubs could try to cut corners.

I guess that their administrators are a safe pair of hands, - 21 points if and when implemented should send Derby down which after all is the title of the thread.

Some very ignorant and arrogant gobby characters on DCFCFans too. Small memo, your owner admitted to breaching P&S once restated. Fact- trip to Pride Park, looking forward to that once both deductions hopefully in place.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

 

[Port Said Red]

Going back to the Rooney discussion, I don't see any real problem with it even if they were paying him directly, which I don't believe they are/were. Many players at a certain level have multiple income streams, and Rooney and 32red could possibly point to ambassadorial or advertising work as a reason for payment. That contract might have been negotiated by MM or someone else at Derby based on the clause that said he has to become a Derby player. Rooney gets his money, while Derby only have to pay a smaller percentage of it.

This is a ruse that has been used in all sorts of sports, someone mentioned rugby before it went professional, but I believe it still happens in League cricket, especially in Lancashire and Yorkshire.

I do wonder how 32Reds involvement has changed since Rooney retired from playing, there is almost certainly less interest and publicity to be gleaned from a Manager of a team, than from a player who might do something on an individual level, even if the team is not performing.

Those who mention 3rd party ownership have got it the wrong way around, as someone else said, that would involve Derby paying 32red a sum of money in return for Rooneys services. Typically in the South American examples mentioned that means the player only seeing a small percentage of the total payment.

[ExiledAjax]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The force majeur argument looks suspect to me.

What is this argument? Could you kindly summarise?

I cannot for the life of me think of a way that dodgy accounting, failing P&S, or anything else that I know of this case could possibly ever fall under the kind of stuff normally set out in a force majeure clause.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

12 hours ago, Hxj said:

mmmm - I think that some on here are confused!

When are you buying your first Derby shirt? 

[AnotherDerbyFan]

11 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The force majeur argument looks suspect to me.

It opens the floodgates if allowed to stand. No accounts post June 2018 and the general integrity of the League, well if Derby's administration appeal allowed to stand then many clubs could try to cut corners.

I guess that their administrators are a safe pair of hands, - 21 points if and when implemented should send Derby down which after all is the title of the thread.

Some very ignorant and arrogant gobby characters on DCFCFans too. Small memo, your owner admitted to breaching P&S once restated. Fact- trip to Pride Park, looking forward to that once both deductions hopefully in place.

It's certainly hopeful thinking but it could happen.

If, there is conclusive proof that without Covid the club could have avoided administration, then I think it's too soon to rule it out. After all, a loss of £20m income is a big wedge of cash - that's a years worth of funding at £1.5m per month.

I'm hoping the 12 points is wiped out or even just reduced, but I'm still expecting to come out of this entire mess with a bigger deduction and the commencement of early preparation for L1.

[Monkeh]

14 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

It's certainly hopeful thinking but it could happen.

If, there is conclusive proof that without Covid the club could have avoided administration, then I think it's too soon to rule it out. After all, a loss of £20m income is a big wedge of cash - that's a years worth of funding at £1.5m per month.

I'm hoping the 12 points is wiped out or even just reduced, but I'm still expecting to come out of this entire mess with a bigger deduction and the commencement of early preparation for L1.

You will be punished further next season,.expect to do a Portsmouth and bolton