Derby County

[BTRFTG]

9 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.

Covid was first reported end Jan 2020, it's impacts not felt for a couple of months afterwards. Odd it therefore prevented publication of accounts for the period June 2018/2019.

You see the problem with claiming all these 'ifs and buts' sums is they're meaningless without reference to non-impaired accounts and the problem at Derby is it appears most linked entities are allergic to posting those.

 

[chinapig]

2 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

You see the problem with claiming all these 'ifs and buts' sums is they're meaningless without reference to non-impaired accounts and the problem at Derby is it appears most linked entities are allergic to posting those.

Perhaps a "the dog ate our accounts" defence will be the next suggested grounds for appeal?

[BetterRedthanBlue]

4 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Perhaps a "the dog ate our accounts" defence will be the next suggested grounds for appeal?

I mean the dog ate my homework worked once when I was at school why shouldn't they try and hoodwink the EFL with it!

[supercidered]

55 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.

I hope the above in bold comes to pass.

Sick of Derby County FC, Derby County Board and associated cronies and Derby fans trying to weasel out of the punishments that are long overdue. I hope it's good riddance to at least League 1 and beyond.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

46 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

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

Why do you think that, when the administrators are confident of new ownership before January?

45 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Covid was first reported end Jan 2020, it's impacts not felt for a couple of months afterwards. Odd it therefore prevented publication of accounts for the period June 2018/2019.

You see the problem with claiming all these 'ifs and buts' sums is they're meaningless without reference to non-impaired accounts and the problem at Derby is it appears most linked entities are allergic to posting those.

I don't see the relevance of not submitting the accounts (a result of the EFL's investigation into the amortisation and stadium issues). Administration was brought upon us because of a lack of cash flow. A 50% drop in income over 16 months or so obviously plays a massive part in that, especially if without Covid we could have got through to a point where we'd be sustainable (break-even or better).

The EFL regs state:

Club income: In the event that a club suffers material adverse effects upon the loss of anticipated income streams which mean that it is unable to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due. This could only be grounds for appeal, however, if the loss occurs during the currency of a binding agreement (i.e. not upon expiry).

A £20m loss of income due to Coivid would match that description in my opinion.

As I said, a successful appeal based on force majeure is hopeful thinking, but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility at this stage.

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Why do you think that, when the administrators are confident of new ownership before January?

I don't see the relevance of not submitting the accounts (a result of the EFL's investigation into the amortisation and stadium issues). Administration was brought upon us because of a lack of cash flow. A 50% drop in income over 16 months or so obviously plays a massive part in that, especially if without Covid we could have got through to a point where we'd be sustainable (break-even or better).

The EFL regs state:

Club income: In the event that a club suffers material adverse effects upon the loss of anticipated income streams which mean that it is unable to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due. This could only be grounds for appeal, however, if the loss occurs during the currency of a binding agreement (i.e. not upon expiry).

A £20m loss of income due to Coivid would match that description in my opinion.

As I said, a successful appeal based on force majeure is hopeful thinking, but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility at this stage.

I don’t see how you can expect anything less than a 12 point deduction for Administration.  Them be the rules, there is no sliding scale.  I don’t see how you’ll get away with the points deduction for the other EFL charges, whether that be 9 (plus 3 Suspended) or another amount of points. Morris already admitted to a breach of FFP in 2018.  He didn’t elaborate whether that was one cycle breach, or multiple cycle breaches.

With Covid, there is already a process to submit losses and allow these to be allowable exclusions for FFP.

[chinapig]

4 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Why do you think that, when the administrators are confident of new ownership before January?

I don't see the relevance of not submitting the accounts (a result of the EFL's investigation into the amortisation and stadium issues). Administration was brought upon us because of a lack of cash flow. A 50% drop in income over 16 months or so obviously plays a massive part in that, especially if without Covid we could have got through to a point where we'd be sustainable (break-even or better).

The EFL regs state:

Club income: In the event that a club suffers material adverse effects upon the loss of anticipated income streams which mean that it is unable to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due. This could only be grounds for appeal, however, if the loss occurs during the currency of a binding agreement (i.e. not upon expiry).

A £20m loss of income due to Coivid would match that description in my opinion.

As I said, a successful appeal based on force majeure is hopeful thinking, but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility at this stage.

 

The supplementary rules already allow for adjustments for COVID-19 and apply to all clubs equally. So you can't just pluck a figure out of the air. Assuming you ever come up with any actual accounts.

Shockingly there is no special provision for Derby, so more victimisation by the EFL.

1.1.7  COVID-19 Costs means lost revenues and/or exceptional costs incurred by a Club that are directly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and that are identified and calculated in accordance with such guidance as issued by the Board;

and:

1.1.11  P&S Calculation means, save as indicated below, the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2. In respect of Season 2020/21 only, the P&S Calculation shall be the aggregation of:

(a)  the mean of the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T and T-1; and

(b)  the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-2; and

(c)  the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-3;

[BTRFTG]

44 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Why do you think that, when the administrators are confident of new ownership before January?

I don't see the relevance of not submitting the accounts (a result of the EFL's investigation into the amortisation and stadium issues). Administration was brought upon us because of a lack of cash flow. A 50% drop in income over 16 months or so obviously plays a massive part in that, especially if without Covid we could have got through to a point where we'd be sustainable (break-even or better).

The EFL regs state:

Club income: In the event that a club suffers material adverse effects upon the loss of anticipated income streams which mean that it is unable to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due. This could only be grounds for appeal, however, if the loss occurs during the currency of a binding agreement (i.e. not upon expiry).

A £20m loss of income due to Coivid would match that description in my opinion.

As I said, a successful appeal based on force majeure is hopeful thinking, but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility at this stage.

You just don't get it, do you?

How can you state there was a drop in income when you've no idea what the income was in the preceding periods? What purpose do you think accounts play? Why are they important?

You claim you were driven to administration by 'cashflow' problems associated with Covid yet that doesn't accord with the numerous dodgy dealings obvious  in the numerous accounts pre June 2018 and since then? Yeah, nobody knows as accounts haven't been filed since and that, if for no other reason, should see strike offs.

You don't need to be an accountant to see Derby gambled sums far, far beyond their means. Covid didn't turn Ince's mother into a scout, or pay ransoms to dodgy associates for scouting reports highlighting Mbappe & Dembele are 'useful', or sign a succession of expensive &  overpaid chancers. And that's the problem with gambling, when you lose you lose. You don't get your stakes returned.

If Derby fans, like Morris,  are looking for sympathy because they are/were weak and addicted to the prospect of success I give you the immortal prophecy of Jim Bowen:" Look what you could have won." That you also appear to have done your BFH; deserving of cheats, I'd say.

Edited September 24, 2021 by BTRFTG

[downendcity]

If, say, Preston, Millwall or Middlesborough were facing administration due to the impact of Covid  and pleading force majeur as a result, then there might be a degree of sympathy, as all these clubs complied with ffp rules, which, lest we forget, were introduced to prevent clubs getting into a financial mess.

Derby’s flouting of ffp rules, and attempts to disguise the level of losses,  would seem to indicate that it was their own financial mismanagement that bought them to the brink. Covid merely served to tip them over the edge.

 

[BTRFTG]

6 minutes ago, downendcity said:

as all these clubs complied with ffp rules, which, lest we forget, were introduced to prevent clubs getting into a financial mess

Save, as previously highlighted and historically evidenced, they weren't.

FFP should be scrapped.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t see how you can expect anything less than a 12 point deduction for Administration.  Them be the rules, there is no sliding scale.

Force majeure under EFL regulations.

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 I don’t see how you’ll get away with the points deduction for the other EFL charges, whether that be 9 (plus 3 Suspended) or another amount of points. Morris already admitted to a breach of FFP in 2018.  He didn’t elaborate whether that was one cycle breach, or multiple cycle breaches.

You're right, if there is a breach then we should have additional points deducted. Mel was vague in waht he said - he didn't say if it was what the EFL deemed the overspend to be, or whether it was the with a new 'Derby amortisation method'. I suspect the former.

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

With Covid, there is already a process to submit losses and allow these to be allowable exclusions for FFP.

That's for P&S, not for administration. 

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Force majeure under EFL regulations.

You're right, if there is a breach then we should have additional points deducted. Mel was vague in waht he said - he didn't say if it was what the EFL deemed the overspend to be, or whether it was the with a new 'Derby amortisation method'. I suspect the former.

That's for P&S, not for administration. 

Yes, I see your points….expecting the reality of being somewhere between Bob Hope and No Hope.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

 

The supplementary rules already allow for adjustments for COVID-19 and apply to all clubs equally. So you can't just pluck a figure out of the air. Assuming you ever come up with any actual accounts.

Shockingly there is no special provision for Derby, so more victimisation by the EFL.

1.1.7  COVID-19 Costs means lost revenues and/or exceptional costs incurred by a Club that are directly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and that are identified and calculated in accordance with such guidance as issued by the Board;

and:

1.1.11  P&S Calculation means, save as indicated below, the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2. In respect of Season 2020/21 only, the P&S Calculation shall be the aggregation of:

(a)  the mean of the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T and T-1; and

(b)  the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-2; and

(c)  the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-3;

That's P&S, not related to administration or cash flow

48 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

You just don't get it, do you?

How can you state there was a drop in income when you've no idea what the income was in the preceding periods? What purpose do you think accounts play? Why are they important?

You claim you were driven to administration by 'cashflow' problems associated with Covid yet that doesn't accord with the numerous dodgy dealings obvious  in the numerous accounts pre June 2018 and since then? Yeah, nobody knows as accounts haven't been filed since and that, if for no other reason, should see strike offs.

You don't need to be an accountant to see Derby gambled sums far, far beyond their means. Covid didn't turn Ince's mother into a scout, or pay ransoms to dodgy associates for scouting reports highlighting Mbappe & Dembele are 'useful', or sign a succession of expensive &  overpaid chancers. And that's the problem with gambling, when you lose you lose. You don't get your stakes returned.

If Derby fans, like Morris,  are looking for sympathy because they are/were weak and addicted to the prospect of success I give you the immortal prophecy of Jim Bowen:" Look what you could have won." That you also appear to have done your BFH; deserving of cheats, I'd say.

It's you who doesn't get it. A club's revenue isn't volitile... it's not going to go from £30m to £10m, then up to £40m in successive seasons in the Championship. In 17/18 revenue was just under £30m. Roughly £15m of that was from match receipts and commercial/hospitality activities (which would have been £0 (or certainly very close to) in 20/21. 
In 17/18, we reached the Play-off semis and early rounds of the cups (Man Utd away in FA Cup). 18/19, it was the Playoff Final and cup games away to Man utd, Chelsea, Southampton and Brighton (I think all 4 of those were on TV?). Match receipts would have been down in 19/20 (no Playoffs or cup run), but sponsorship thanks to Rooney would have offset that slightly. 20/21 would have been similar to 19/20, but for a full year of Rooney sponsorship. For simplicity, it's reasonable to just assume £30m revenue for all seasons, minus the Covid impact on match receipts and commercial/hospitality activities... c50% of revenue.

It's not about what we spent prior to Covid. It's about whether the numbers stack up to say we would not have been in administration if it wasn't for Covid - in our case, was the business going to be self-sustainable from the 22/23 season onwards.

I'm not looking for sympathy at all. I'm simply putting forward a potential viewpoint that some on here instantly choose to dismiss without actually looking at it in detail.

Edited September 24, 2021 by AnotherDerbyFan

[chinapig]

14 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

That's P&S, not related to administration or cash flow

I would nevertheless suggest that any reasonable person properly instructed as to the law as the lawyers say would apply the same logic i.e. that the impact of Covid was not unique to Derby, and therefore dismiss the argument.

The "we lost more than those little clubs" argument ignores the possibility that the clubs you disdain might have lost a smaller amount but an equal proportion of their income and amounts to special pleading. It also ignores the costs side of the equation, those costs having got out of control over a period predating Covid.

Still, Honest Mel is Innocent t-shirts could be a new income stream I suppose.

[semblar]

26 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

That's P&S, not related to administration or cash flow

It's you who doesn't get it. A club's revenue isn't volitile... it's not going to go from £30m to £10m, then up to £40m in successive seasons in the Championship. In 17/18 revenue was just under £30m. Roughly £15m of that was from match receipts and commercial/hospitality activities (which would have been £0 (or certainly very close to) in 20/21. 
In 17/18, we reached the Play-off semis and early rounds of the cups (Man Utd away in FA Cup). 18/19, it was the Playoff Final and cup games away to Man utd, Chelsea, Southampton and Brighton (I think all 4 of those were on TV?). Match receipts would have been down in 19/20 (no Playoffs or cup run), but sponsorship thanks to Rooney would have offset that slightly. 20/21 would have been similar to 19/20, but for a full year of Rooney sponsorship. For simplicity, it's reasonable to just assume £30m revenue for all seasons, minus the Covid impact on match receipts and commercial/hospitality activities... c50% of revenue.

It's not about what we spent prior to Covid. It's about whether the numbers stack up to say we would not have been in administration if it wasn't for Covid - in our case, was the business going to be self-sustainable from the 22/23 season onwards.

I'm not looking for sympathy at all. I'm simply putting forward a potential viewpoint that some on here instantly choose to dismiss without actually looking at it in detail.

I won't dismiss that out of hand, but you have seen counter-arguments here already. Yes, the income will have dropped for sure.... but the same is true for all of the clubs in the championship (parachute clubs excepted perhaps) - none of them have had income from tickets or hospitality/commercial streams. SO the question to ask is why Derby and not most of the clubs? For that the answer most would jump to would be the "shenanigans" that Mel got up to chasing the dream.

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, chinapig said:

I would nevertheless suggest that any reasonable person properly instructed as to the law as the lawyers say would apply the same logic i.e. that the impact of Covid was not unique to Derby, and therefore dismiss the argument.

Precisely. Others have set out the black and white rules, so this is more of a common sense/golden rule approach.

I don't see how Derby could claim that they went into administration solely because of Covid-related losses when there are literally dozens of other clubs in the EFL, the Premier League, non-league, France, Italy, the USA, Sierra Leone etc that have suffered similarly due to Covid and yet have somehow managed to not enter administration.

Any particular sensitivity or exposure that Derby had that caused Covid to hit them harder than other clubs immediately defeats the FM argument as it intrinsically means that their administration is not solely down to Covid - it's down to that pre-existing financial sensitivity or over-exposure that was then compounded or exacerbated by Covid. It's only made worse by the fact that those sensitivities were created through the flouting of the P&S rules.

Logically it just isn't an argument that holds any water.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I would nevertheless suggest that any reasonable person properly instructed as to the law as the lawyers say would apply the same logic i.e. that the impact of Covid was not unique to Derby, and therefore dismiss the argument.

The "we lost more than those little clubs" argument ignores the possibility that the clubs you disdain might have lost a smaller amount but an equal proportion of their income and amounts to special pleading. It also ignores the costs side of the equation, those costs having got out of control over a period predating Covid.

It doesn't matter if Covid affected other clubs or not and by how much. All that would matter is if without Covid the club wouldn't have entered administration.

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Still, Honest Mel is Innocent t-shirts could be a new income stream I suppose.

8 minutes ago, semblar said:

I won't dismiss that out of hand, but you have seen counter-arguments here already. Yes, the income will have dropped for sure.... but the same is true for all of the clubs in the championship (parachute clubs excepted perhaps) - none of them have had income from tickets or hospitality/commercial streams. SO the question to ask is why Derby and not most of the clubs? For that the answer most would jump to would be the "shenanigans" that Mel got up to chasing the dream.

See my above comment.

[Davefevs]

39 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

It doesn't matter if Covid affected other clubs or not and by how much. All that would matter is if without Covid the club wouldn't have entered administration.

See my above comment.

I guess there would be a counter-argument....what did MM do to mitigate Covid?  Should he have signed Joswiak, te Wierik, Kazim-Richards, Marshall, Byrne, Ibe and Clarke (loan) in such a Covid-landscape?

Other clubs cut back last summer (most didn't admittedly).

[chinapig]

40 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

It doesn't matter if Covid affected other clubs or not and by how much. All that would matter is if without Covid the club wouldn't have entered administration.

Special pleading as I say and ignoring the costs side. Could be expressed as "we would have got away with years of financial mismanagement and cheating if it wasn't for Covid."

Will be interesting to see if the administrators choose to carry on with Morris' delaying tactics, though I doubt potential buyers would welcome more uncertainty.

[Davefevs]

@AnotherDerbyFan out of interest, what did Derby do re season tickets last season?

[AnotherDerbyFan]

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I guess there would be a counter-argument....what did MM do to mitigate Covid?  Should he have signed Joswiak, te Wierik, Kazim-Richards, Marshall, Byrne, Ibe and Clarke (loan) in such a Covid-landscape?

Other clubs cut back last summer (most didn't admittedly).

That's a good point. You could also add why we rejected multi-million pound offers for the likes of Lawrence and Buchanan just days before Mel started discussing administration.

A counter-counter-argument could be that no-one knew how long fans wouldn't be allowed in the stadium.

Too many complexities in it for me to think there's a realistic chance of getting the deduction overturned.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@AnotherDerbyFan out of interest, what did Derby do re season tickets last season?

We were given 5 options for 19/20:

1. Pro-rata refund (I think it took until the start of this season for the remaining people to get it)
2. 20% discount on 20/21 ST
3. 10% discount on 20/21 ST with free RamsTV subscription for the remainder of the season
4. 4 match ticket vouchers for 20/21
5. No refund

For 20/21:

1. The above options to be carried over to 21/22
2. Option to get full refund on 20/21 ST, but had to request it before a certain match day
3. Pro-rata refund if keep 20/21 ST

Probably some other options, but can't remember off the top of my head

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

A club's revenue isn't volitile... it's not going to go from £30m to £10m, then up to £40m in successive seasons in the Championship

But that's exactly what you are suggesting, that revenues were severely hit by Covid. I know Derby think themselves an exception and love so to do but you can't have it both ways. Whilst TV & EFL fundings are less volatile, as Covid demonstrates ticket & commercial income may be. The point of accounts being to be able to see what you've banked and when? Who knows whether Derby front loaded commercial arrangements to suit in any given period without them being reported? Rangers did it for years, banking 'income' (sic) from deals secured against future revenues.

Why would commercial and match revenues be zero in 20/21? Didn't you play, didn't you sell online subscriptions to punters, did all your commercial punters pull out? That's not what 32Red's accounts are likely to say or what their commercial director has spoke of this week re Rooney.

I think had you published your accounts when you were required so to do you would have been found to have contravened FFP, been deducted points, faced sanctions and wouldn't have benefitted from the prize money you did. Maybe that would have put you under? All conjecture as we won't know until, like all other clubs are required to, you publish your accounts, in full, non-impaired.

Edited September 24, 2021 by BTRFTG

[AnotherDerbyFan]

6 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

But that's exactly what you are suggesting, that revenues were severely hit by Covid. I know Derby think themselves an exception and love so to do but you can't have it both ways. Whilst TV & EFL fundings are less volatile, as Covid demonstrates ticket & commercial income may be. The point of accounts being to be able to see what you've banked and when? Who knows whether Derby front loaded commercial arrangements to suit in any given period without them being reported? Rangers did it for years, banking 'income' (sic) from deals secured against future revenues.

Why would commercial and match revenues be zero in 20/21? Didn't you play, didn't you sell online subscriptions to punters,

That falls under "TV, broadcasting revenue and football league income"

6 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

did all your commercial punters pull out? That's not what 32Red's accounts are likely to say or what their commercial director has spoke of this week re Rooney.

That falls under "sponsorship"

6 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

I think had you published your accounts when you were required so to do you would have been found to have contravened FFP, been deducted points, faced sanctions and wouldn't have benefitted from the prize money you did. Maybe that would have put you under? All conjecture as we won't know until, like all other clubs are required to, you publish your accounts, in full, non-impaired.

If we had published accounts when we were required, they would have likely shown we were still within the limits due to the amortisation policy.

[Monkeh]

3 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Why do you think that, when the administrators are confident of new ownership before January?

I don't see the relevance of not submitting the accounts (a result of the EFL's investigation into the amortisation and stadium issues). Administration was brought upon us because of a lack of cash flow. A 50% drop in income over 16 months or so obviously plays a massive part in that, especially if without Covid we could have got through to a point where we'd be sustainable (break-even or better).

The EFL regs state:

Club income: In the event that a club suffers material adverse effects upon the loss of anticipated income streams which mean that it is unable to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due. This could only be grounds for appeal, however, if the loss occurs during the currency of a binding agreement (i.e. not upon expiry).

A £20m loss of income due to Coivid would match that description in my opinion.

As I said, a successful appeal based on force majeure is hopeful thinking, but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility at this stage.

Because Bolton, Portsmouth and countless others were as cocky as you are

[Mr Popodopolous]

Small point on the amortisation bit, don't have time to scroll through all the posts so apologies if already covered.

It all has to be accounted for eventually. Chances are that with Derby's methods, a breach could have materialised somewhere down the line. 

I remember figures posted by @AnotherDerbyFan months ago that showed amortisation over a lot of seasons using different methods.

Assuming that every penny of fee was correctly accounted for either through amortisation or impairment- of fees not goodwill- then it would've caught up with the club at some point, in a P&S context.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Monkeh]

44 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

That's a good point. You could also add why we rejected multi-million pound offers for the likes of Lawrence and Buchanan just days before Mel started discussing administration.

A counter-counter-argument could be that no-one knew how long fans wouldn't be allowed in the stadium.

Too many complexities in it for me to think there's a realistic chance of getting the deduction overturned.

Then your club deserves absolutely everything you get,

You could of sold those and not enter administration 

But then reading your post and clutching at straws I doubt you have the brain power to understand this

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Monkeh said:

Then your club deserves absolutely everything you get,

You could of sold those and not enter administration 

But then reading your post and clutching at straws I doubt you have the brain power to understand this

Surely selling those would have just papered over the cracks though? Really Mel Morris is reportedly worth £500m so there was no need for administration at all from that angle anyway.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Small point on the amortisation bit, don't have time to scroll through all the posts so apologies if already covered.

It all has to be accounted for eventually. Chances are that with Derby's methods, a breach could have materialised somewhere down the line. 

I remember figures posted by @AnotherDerbyFan months ago that showed amortisation over a lot of seasons using different methods.

Assuming that every penny of fee was correctly accounted for either through amortisation or impairment- of fees not goodwill- then it would've caught up with the club at some point, in a P&S context.

Possibly, it depends how it was spread out.

Method 1: £5m underspend, £5m underspend, £5m underspend = compliant in 3 periods
Method 2: £5m overspend, £10m underspend, £10m underspend = compliant in 2 periods

In all honesty, you probably would have seen us hit with much bigger points deductions if you had let us stick to 'The Derby Method'.

[BTRFTG]

18 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

That falls under "TV, broadcasting revenue and football league income"

That falls under "sponsorship"

If we had published accounts when we were required, they would have likely shown we were still within the limits due to the amortisation policy.

On the match purchase TV income: it'll be interesting to see how clubs account for it but it wasn't any part of existing deal, not Sky, nor EFL. Clubs were allowed to sell via their own arrangements and keep revenues, hence would have replaced to some degree matchday income.

Sponsoring is invariably rolled up as Commercial Activity (for that is what it is,) but with Derby who knows? So one assumes there was no perimeter advertising at Pride Park last year, no use of trademark or copyright for intellectual property, that Derby laid off/furloughed all its commercial department? Bet it didn't.

As for remaining within FFP limits, even your beloved Chairman has now conceded you haven't done that despite attempting, using the most contrived practice, to pretend you had.

The quicker Derby fess up, show the numbers and take their punishment, the better for them as their protracted pleadings are making the average fan, who couldn't normally give a flying about them, begin to wish their existence is short lived, better for the benefit of the game.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

6 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Then your club deserves absolutely everything you get,

You could of sold those and not enter administration 

But then reading your post and clutching at straws I doubt you have the brain power to understand this

Like I said, not selling those players will be a contributing factor as to why it'd very unlikely we'll had the admin points deduction removed. Would selling the players we received offers for have been enough to get us through to a point of being self-sufficient? We'd have needed to raise £20m from sales for it to outweigh the Covid impact.

PS. I'm sure you can think of better insults than that. 0/10 for creativity, 1/10 for effort.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

3 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

On the match purchase TV income: it'll be interesting to see how clubs account for it but it wasn't any part of existing deal, not Sky, nor EFL. Clubs were allowed to sell via their own arrangements and keep revenues, hence would have replaced to some degree matchday income.

RamsTV income could potetnially fall under match ticket income, but the much more likely option is for it to be grouped with TV income.

3 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Sponsoring is invariably rolled up as Commercial Activity (for that is what it is,) but with Derby who knows? So one assumes there was no perimeter advertising at Pride Park last year, no use of trademark or copyright for intellectual property, that Derby laid off/furloughed all its commercial department? Bet it didn't.

Sponsorship is separate from commercial.

3 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

As for remaining within FFP limits, even your beloved Chairman has now conceded you haven't done that despite attempting, using the most contrived practice, to pretend you had.

The quicker Derby fess up, show the numbers and take their punishment, the better for them as their protracted pleadings are making the average fan, who couldn't normally give a flying about them, begin to wish their existence is short lived, better for the benefit of the game.

I gave a very vague comment, which could relate to 'new Derby method' or a 'standard method'.

[Davefevs]

@AnotherDerbyFan

What is your view on whether Derby pay Rooney alone or whether it is a combo of Derby and Red32.  I guess (split made up) if Rooney is on £90k p.w. and Derby pay £20k / Red32 £70k, I'm guessing Red32 aren't gonna be required to pay £3.5m to Derby in Sponsorship???  Just my simple concept.

[chinapig]

2 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

PS. I'm sure you can think of better insults than that. 0/10 for creativity, 1/10 for effort.

I agree that was unjustified. But there is such a thing as motivated reasoning, a trap you may be falling into as we all do from time to time.

Motivated reasoning is a phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology that uses emotionally biased reasoning to produce justifications or make decisions that are most desired rather than those that accurately reflect the evidence.

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Possibly, it depends how it was spread out.

Method 1: £5m underspend, £5m underspend, £5m underspend = compliant in 3 periods
Method 2: £5m overspend, £10m underspend, £10m underspend = compliant in 2 periods

In all honesty, you probably would have seen us hit with much bigger points deductions if you had let us stick to 'The Derby Method'.

I'd have to look in more depth when I get time but I'll take what you've said there and agree. I think I get it but I do recall the EFL Written Reasons stated an amortisation spike from IIRC £4.6m to £20m between 2018/19 and 2019/20? I know wages would've dropped too.

Yeah seems quite possible for sure. I remember Ghost of Clough suggested that DCFC would have had using Derby's method this season or season just gone to sell players just to remain within limits, that's before any strengthening etc.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[AnotherDerbyFan]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

@AnotherDerbyFan

What is your view on whether Derby pay Rooney alone or whether it is a combo of Derby and Red32.  I guess (split made up) if Rooney is on £90k p.w. and Derby pay £20k / Red32 £70k, I'm guessing Red32 aren't gonna be required to pay £3.5m to Derby in Sponsorship???  Just my simple concept.

It'll be entirely Derby, with increased sponsorship. Hopefully only a few months until we finally see some accounts to give us a clue on how much extra 32Red are giving us

[BTRFTG]

13 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

RamsTV income could potetnially fall under match ticket income, but the much more likely option is for it to be grouped with TV income.

Sponsorship is separate from commercial.

I gave a very vague comment, which could relate to 'new Derby method' or a 'standard method'.

As was reported the last time you published accounts but at the risk of sounding like a broken record, who knows what you've done since?

Recall the amortization policy you claim likely kept you within FFP limits was, er, changed from flatline to something that allowed you to dodge a bullet. 

The list of Commercial Activities broken down is just that. Merchandising, flogging programmes or shirts , like selling Sponsorship, is a Commercial activity.

[Ska Junkie]

4 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t see how you can expect anything less than a 12 point deduction for Administration.  Them be the rules, there is no sliding scale.  I don’t see how you’ll get away with the points deduction for the other EFL charges, whether that be 9 (plus 3 Suspended) or another amount of points. Morris already admitted to a breach of FFP in 2018.  He didn’t elaborate whether that was one cycle breach, or multiple cycle breaches.

With Covid, there is already a process to submit losses and allow these to be allowable exclusions for FFP.

In all honesty and with all resect to @AnotherDerbyFan, I can see why they would appeal but every other club was dealt the same deck with covid etc so why should DCFC be treated any differently to the rest of us? We've cut our cloth accordingly, as have many others, and survived, although with massive wage bill cuts, why should DCFC avoid the same protocols?

No disrespect to our DCFC visitors but I can't see why they should wriggle out of this as they have clearly used every possible trick in the book to spend beyond their means in pursuit of a dream (as we have to an extent I suppose) and now they are paying the price.

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more general point that takes individual clubs out of the equation for a minute.

Any club that has a negative cash flow is vulnerable to this kinda thing. Whether it's an owner going bust, having their debts called in, giving up, health issues, costly divorce. The specific issue doesn't really matter.

Then it depends on how much cash that club has in the bank so to speak, but any club that has to have cash losses topped up by an owner or entity (Fosun at Wolves maybe an example of an entity) is vulnerable, there are loads of circumstances beyond that which show the future path but there is a starting point.

Someone like Burnley have a very good cash balance so I'd expect them to be fine for some time but they really aren't the norm. Man Utd obviously, Arsenal did, dunno if they still do. Dunno about regular Championship? Do any? 

[Ska Junkie]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One more general point that takes individual clubs out of the equation for a minute.

Any club that has a negative cash flow is vulnerable to this kinda thing. Whether it's an owner going bust, having their debts called in, giving up, health issues, costly divorce. The specific issue doesn't really matter.

Then it depends on how much cash that club has in the bank so to speak, but any club that has to have cash losses topped up by an owner or entity (Fosun at Wolves maybe an example of an entity) is vulnerable, there are loads of circumstances beyond that which show the future path but there is a starting point.

Someone like Burnley have a very good cash balance so I'd expect them to be fine for some time but they really aren't the norm. Man Utd obviously, Arsenal did, dunno if they still do. Dunno about regular Championship? Do any? 

Weren't Reading at 226% of income on wages very recently? @Davefevswould know more. I think we were over 100% as well. I would imagine many Championship clubs are TBH.

[Hxj]

5 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

When are you buying your first Derby shirt? 

I could call in on my way home - about a 15 minute diversion 

[Hxj]

On the vexed issue of Force Majeure and any appeal on the -12 points:

Derby will have to:

1. Within 7 days of receipt of the formal notice - appeal and provide all the documents they intend to rely on.

2. Pay the EFL £5,000.

3. Agree and pay for an independent accountant's report that will review the circumstances before and leading up to the Administration and report on the causes of the Administration.

4. Prove on a balance of probabilities that that there was a single event causing the Administration.

If for instance the club still hasn't been paid for the ground they are stuffed before the process starts.

[supercidered]

2 minutes ago, Hxj said:

On the vexed issue of Force Majeure and any appeal on the -12 points:

Derby will have to:

1. Within 7 days of receipt of the formal notice - appeal and provide all the documents they intend to rely on.

2. Pay the EFL £5,000.

3. Agree and pay for an independent accountant's report that will review the circumstances before and leading up to the Administration and report on the causes of the Administration.

4. Prove on a balance of probabilities that that there was a single event causing the Administration.

If for instance the club still hasn't been paid for the ground they are stuffed before the process starts.

So they are f@cked then. Good.

[BTRFTG]

5 minutes ago, Hxj said:

If for instance the club still hasn't been paid for the ground they are stuffed before the process starts

I'd assumed Gellaw's accounts reflected that they'd purchased the asset but had creditors within the year in a similar sum who I assumed to be loan repayments (i.e. a short-term mortgage flip.)

Are you suggesting in reality they've claimed ownership but haven't yet paid for it? I've done plenty of property deals in my time but never one where a freehold was transferred on the basis of a future payment commitment. Legally, how the hell might that be structured?

[Hxj]

4 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Legally, how the hell might that be structured?

The land is transferred in the usual way and the consideration is left outstanding on a loan account.

[BTRFTG]

6 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The land is transferred in the usual way and the consideration is left outstanding on a loan account.

Well my,  I've never encountered a freeholder who'd be interested in that type of deal and if that's really how they contrived to move the FFP numbers they should have the full version of the OED thrown at them.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Well my,  I've never encountered a freeholder who'd be interested in that type of deal and if that's really how they contrived to move the FFP numbers they should have the full version of the OED thrown at them.

I can hear MM repeating the words - I'm not an Accountant, just like in the various interviews we've heard. 

In true Monty Python, he's just a very naughty boy.

[REDOXO]

4 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

That's P&S, not related to administration or cash flow

It's you who doesn't get it. A club's revenue isn't volitile... it's not going to go from £30m to £10m, then up to £40m in successive seasons in the Championship. In 17/18 revenue was just under £30m. Roughly £15m of that was from match receipts and commercial/hospitality activities (which would have been £0 (or certainly very close to) in 20/21. 
In 17/18, we reached the Play-off semis and early rounds of the cups (Man Utd away in FA Cup). 18/19, it was the Playoff Final and cup games away to Man utd, Chelsea, Southampton and Brighton (I think all 4 of those were on TV?). Match receipts would have been down in 19/20 (no Playoffs or cup run), but sponsorship thanks to Rooney would have offset that slightly. 20/21 would have been similar to 19/20, but for a full year of Rooney sponsorship. For simplicity, it's reasonable to just assume £30m revenue for all seasons, minus the Covid impact on match receipts and commercial/hospitality activities... c50% of revenue.

It's not about what we spent prior to Covid. It's about whether the numbers stack up to say we would not have been in administration if it wasn't for Covid - in our case, was the business going to be self-sustainable from the 22/23 season onwards.

I'm not looking for sympathy at all. I'm simply putting forward a potential viewpoint that some on here instantly choose to dismiss without actually looking at it in detail.

The devil is always in the detail. I suspect more will be revealed when the back accounts are at the EFL. IF I am following correctly, The board Of Derby have agreed the accounts pre Covid were not in order and there may well be another four point deduction looming. Or am I wrong about that?

[Hxj]

38 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

I've never encountered a freeholder who'd be interested in that type of deal

At the time all the entities were under common ownership and most of the rights and benefits of occupation sat in the club due to the lease.  It's not at all uncommon in groups of companies.

[downendcity]

Just read this on Derby’s fans forum.

No i am not on anti Morris crusade. The Covid loan wasn't to save clubs from Covid it was to specifically help clubs meet PAYE liabilities and clubs that didn’t meet the criteria wouldn't be able to receive the loan.We appeared to owe HMRC before Covid appeared on the scene so why should the EFL help to clear debt that had already been accrued,that's how other clubs would have looked at it.Other clubs ensured PAYE had been up to date with liabilities to HMRC otherwise they wouldn't have got it.

 

 

Did I read somewhere that Derby owes HMRC something in the region of £25m? If so, and if this ( or a large part of it) accrued prior to the pandemic, then it would seem to indicate that serious financial issues were already affecting the club well before Covid came along

I’ve mentioned before that issues like the sale of Pride Park and the accounting methodology seem to have been regarded by many Derby fans as clever ruses to get one over the EFL and to show how clever MM was in beating the unfair ffp system. 

 

[downendcity]

10 hours ago, downendcity said:

Just read this on Derby’s fans forum.

No i am not on anti Morris crusade. The Covid loan wasn't to save clubs from Covid it was to specifically help clubs meet PAYE liabilities and clubs that didn’t meet the criteria wouldn't be able to receive the loan.We appeared to owe HMRC before Covid appeared on the scene so why should the EFL help to clear debt that had already been accrued,that's how other clubs would have looked at it.Other clubs ensured PAYE had been up to date with liabilities to HMRC otherwise they wouldn't have got it.

 

 

Did I read somewhere that Derby owes HMRC something in the region of £25m? If so, and if this ( or a large part of it) accrued prior to the pandemic, then it would seem to indicate that serious financial issues were already affecting the club well before Covid came along

I’ve mentioned before that issues like the sale of Pride Park and the accounting methodology seem to have been regarded by many Derby fans as clever ruses to get one over the EFL and to show how clever MM was in beating the unfair ffp system. 

 

I meant to add at the end:

In reality the ducking and diving over ffp should have been a warning sign as to the club’s true financial position.

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

Weren't Reading at 226% of income on wages very recently? @Davefevswould know more. I think we were over 100% as well. I would imagine many Championship clubs are TBH.

Think Trevor Birch said the other day that the average exceeded 100% of turnover. Wages alone which makes for a basketcase of a League in a sense. 

We are one of the less bad but still exceeded 100% as of most recent accounts.

He was quoting reports from Deloitte which is fine but you'd hope the EFL as the Governing body would have a better grasp with the info available to them!? Maybe it was EFL commissioned research but if not....

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 hours ago, Hxj said:

On the vexed issue of Force Majeure and any appeal on the -12 points:

Derby will have to:

1. Within 7 days of receipt of the formal notice - appeal and provide all the documents they intend to rely on.

2. Pay the EFL £5,000.

3. Agree and pay for an independent accountant's report that will review the circumstances before and leading up to the Administration and report on the causes of the Administration.

4. Prove on a balance of probabilities that that there was a single event causing the Administration.

If for instance the club still hasn't been paid for the ground they are stuffed before the process starts.

Thanks for clearing up the process. Point 1, when you say receipt of the formal notice do you mean the notice of the points deduction, ie Tuesday or do you mean formal notice to file, ie last Friday?

If it's the former their window may well have expired.

Would think that the overriding objectives of the League, image etc could supersede Derby's claims, as one successful force majeure and it could set a precedent.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

On a side note, I have to say that some on DCFCFans do their club little credit. Or few favours.

Now forums are forums and it's not like they carry much sway but it seems to me that Derby need to rebuild bridges not only with the EFL but start to with other clubs too. Mel leaving will have helped.

The thing about DCFCFans however, is how independent from the club is it? I noticed eg that there are club advertisements that might help to fund it.

Sure that Gibson and the EFL would be quite interested at some of the comments that appear on there. How arms length from the club is it. The forum operator also appeared to be one of Mel's favoured guests for behind closed doors fan briefing.

Their statement going into administration didn't help, EFL took a part of that badly and Rooney reportedly intimated that he would consider throwing youth products in if a further deduction ie the mooted one for FFP arose. Made reference to the integrity of the competition.

As a club they need to watch their step tbh. I'm sure the administrators will take a pragmatic approach fwiw but a shitload of goodwill has been burnt through by Mel and no small number of gloating fans since 2019

[Hxj]

38 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

when you say receipt of the formal notice do you mean the notice of the points deduction, ie Tuesday or do you mean formal notice to file, ie last Friday?

Notice of the points deduction.

[Davefevs]

From Matt Slater - Athletic

Every day is a school day for Derby County supporters at the moment and Thursday’s curriculum included lessons on teaser documents, preferential creditors and manager Wayne Rooney’s favourite Only Fools and Horses scene with Terrence Aubrey “Boycie” Boyce.

The latter revelation came 10 minutes into the third big Derby-related interview of the day: Rooney’s pre-Saturday chat with the local press.

Given recent events, there was a lot more to talk about than groin strains but the 35-year-old cannot have been expecting a request for a tribute to the actor who played Boycie, John Challis, who died last week. Like so much else that has been thrown his way of late, Rooney handled it beautifully.

“First of all, condolences to his family — it’s very sad news,” he said. “I was actually watching Only Fools and Horses last night, being honest, so, yeah, there are a lot of moments in there. I think when (Boycie’s wife) Marlene got breast implants and Del Boy wound Boycie up, was one of the best moments for me.”

Sad news, boobs, wind-ups… it has been that kind of week at Pride Park.

Earlier on Thursday, insolvency experts Andrew Hosking and Carl Jackson held their first press conference since being appointed as joint administrators of the cash-strapped club.

To their credit, they answered a lot of questions and they explained how they were appointed, what the next two weeks look like, and how fans can still help the club.

They admitted that Derby’s debts were substantial but said those IOUs were now frozen by the administration process, and that any new owner could negotiate a significant “discount” on them, a change in circumstances that immediately makes the club more attractive to potential buyers. This, they claimed, is why half a dozen “serious and well-funded” parties have already expressed an interest in rescuing the business.

They also said they had already met representatives of the supporters’ trust, which, under English Football League rules, has 28 days to put a bid together for the club, and had told Rooney and his players that they had no intention to start ripping up their contracts or flogging them off in a clearance sale.

There were a few references to “inevitable bumps in the road” and the need to cut costs but, overall, the message was confident and upbeat.

In fact, when pushed for an answer on how confident they were that Derby County could be saved, Hosking said: “Contrary to a podcast I heard this week, I don’t consider this to be another Bury.

“Barristers never offer better chances than 60 to 70 per cent in any case but I think there is a 95 per cent chance this will be restructured. Look, I’m confident.”

Jackson, who looked a little uncomfortable as Hosking chose not to duck that bouncer, added: “I wasn’t sure if Andrew would put a number on it but, yes, I’ll back that.”

Derby, courtesy of being deducted 12 points, are bottom of the Championship (Photo: Bradley Collyer/PA Images via Getty Images)

In terms of saying what fans, players and staff wanted to hear this week, Hosking and Jackson ticked every box.

Money to pay next week’s wage bill? Check. No fire sale? Yep. Commitment to fulfil the fixtures? Absolutely. People still want to buy us? Sure.

The press conference, however, had a different impact on the rest of the football industry.

When The Athletic contacted EFL club bosses, insolvency experts and potential investors on Thursday for their thoughts on the Derby administration’s bold beginning, the responses ranged from “good luck” to “good grief”.

The reasons for this are fairly simple. One, Derby’s debts are massive and a huge slice of what they owe is either secured against the property assets or has preferential status in law — getting the owners of these debts to accept pennies in the pound will not be nearly as straightforward as Hosking and Jackson implied.

Two, the administrators claimed they can more than half the club’s running costs now that it no longer has to meet the obligations of any payment plan it has set up with creditors. That bit is true but nobody believes a moratorium on the debts is going to slice “more than 50 per cent” from the club’s monthly costs. The only way to do that is to let people go.

The administrators have two weeks to decide who they absolutely cannot do without to put the games on or they will assume all of the club’s contracts. There is some very bad news coming down the road and it will feel like more than a “few bumps” for those on the wrong end of it.

Three, nobody is looking to buy Derby County now who was not looking at them last week. The price was too high then, not to mention the future liabilities and uncertainty over which division Derby will be in next season (or the one after that), and it is unclear how much has changed.

And four, the administrators admitted, almost breezily, that they need another loan to fund the club until January, which is the shortest possible window to achieve a sale this complicated.

Just let that settle in for a moment.

Mel Morris, the former owner, has just decided enough is enough after injecting over £200 million into Derby since 2014. The club owes almost £30 million to the tax man, £20 million to a US investment firm, £10 million to other clubs, former staff and other individuals who come under the “football creditors” bracket, who must be paid in full, and a similar sum to the usual cast of hundreds who have provided food, office supplies or their time to the club.

And even after drastic cuts to the playing budget over the last 18 months, the club is still losing about £15 million a year.

But the administrators say they are currently in talks with four different lenders about “short-term funding”. How and when this loan will be repaid, or what interest this lender will charge, was not explained.

Later on Thursday, EFL chief executive Trevor Birch, an accountant by trade who has done a few football administrations himself, was asked if this was a bit unusual.

“I haven’t used it in a football insolvency but I believe there may be lenders willing to do it if they get super-priority,” he said.

We asked another insolvency expert the same question and he was less diplomatic: “It’s unheard of. They must be mad.”

To be fair to Jackson, he did admit “we don’t have much choice”.

Birch, however, was also asked about the administrators’ belief that HM Revenue and Customs will just have to accept whatever pennies-in-the-pound offer Hosking, Jackson and their fellow joint-administrator Andrew Andronikou can come up with.

“I share your scepticism that it will be a simple situation with HMRC,” said Birch.

“It’s the first administration since 2002 where they’ve had preferential status. It will be interesting to see how they vote in any (Company Voluntary Arrangement) or alternative exit route.”

This is a reference to the fact that the UK government last year restored HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies, which means administrators can no longer discriminate against the taxman when the final divvying up of the assets takes place. If Arsenal are going to get paid in full for the money Derby owe them, so is the crown.

Nobody is suggesting these are easy issues to communicate and several sources have pointed out that all football administrations look awful to begin with but usually end up with a positive result.

It is also important to note that the administrators, Birch and Rooney all said they would do all in their power to save this club, which was a founding member of the Football League in 1888 and a member of the Premier League as recently as 2008.

But misplaced confidence, risk-taking and attempts to hide bad numbers are all causes of Derby’s current predicament.

The only way the club survives this crisis is if it is honest with itself, its fans, its creditors and its potential saviours. Otherwise, only a fool or somebody horsing about will even look at them.

[Mr Popodopolous]

That's an illuminating article, thanks for posting Dave.

Reading that, I posted snippets of the press conference the other week and tbh the administration team did seem somewhat bullish.

Couple of bits. IIRC the bit bumped up (as per Govt site) for HMRC as preferential is employee NI, VAT and PAYE. There are some other categories but those feel the most relevant in cases like this- the rest of the HMRC debt owing would be secondary preferential.

The other bit is a claim I've periodically seen elsewhere that their wage bill is £15m, £12m and perhaps even as low as £10m.

I struggle to see how personally.

a) Club in isolation

b) Consolidated

c) Just the football staff

d) Just the players

e) Inclusive of NI, PAYE?

No doubt it's dropped but the running costs were huge in 2017/18. That's as in Revenue -  Operating Costs.

It's a large organisation but the Sevco 5112 IIRC had an operating loss of £45-46m. Has this really been slashed so far in 3 years, 4 at a push!

[Davefevs]

19 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That's an illuminating article, thanks for posting Dave.

Reading that, I posted snippets of the press conference the other week and tbh the administration team did seem somewhat bullish.

Couple of bits. IIRC the bit bumped up (as per Govt site) for HMRC as preferential is employee NI, VAT and PAYE. There are some other categories but those feel the most relevant in cases like this- the rest of the HMRC debt owing would be secondary preferential.

The other bit is a claim I've periodically seen elsewhere that their wage bill is £15m, £12m and perhaps even as low as £10m.

I struggle to see how personally.

a) Club in isolation

b) Consolidated

c) Just the football staff

d) Just the players

e) Inclusive of NI, PAYE?

No doubt it's dropped but the running costs were huge in 2017/18. That's as in Revenue -  Operating Costs.

It's a large organisation but the Sevco 5112 IIRC had an operating loss of £45-46m. Has this really been slashed so far in 3 years, 4 at a push!

I genuinely think that is “people” misinterpreting when MM says he has covered the losses / wages with £1.2-1.5m per month.  I think they are forgetting there are some revenues also helping to cover the bills too.

[Hxj]

40 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

genuinely think that is “people” misinterpreting when MM says he has covered the losses / wages with £1.2-1.5m per month.  I think they are forgetting there are some revenues also helping to cover the bills too.

Plus it is becoming increasingly obvious that he was only covering the cash that had to be paid out, so no PAYE/NIC for instance as that didn't have to be paid as HMRC were not going to wind the company up during the pandemic.  So with a footballer on £1 million a year the take home pay is about £550,000 a year, that would be the cash cost covered by Morris.  The actual cost to the business would be a further £590,000 in PAYE and NIC that he hadn't met.

The figures escalate significantly as for example amortisation of transfer fees and related costs are a non-cash cost as well.

[Cidre Monita]

I find it astonishing that 30 years ago Swindon were demoted 2 divisions for financial fraud. The accountants have got better, but it is quite clear Morris has played every financial trick in the book without troubling in any great way his own financial well being. He has defrauded the country (the NHS , schools, well everything) by not paying the tax bills. He has still a few hundred million. Swindon were battered, Rangers too, yet how are we talking this nonsense with Derby when it is clear the perpetrators knew what they were doing and sought to mislead and ultimately defraud the country and others. This was no accident, it was a manipulation, and took artistic accounting to the limits. Morris should be facing criminal charges. and prison Derby should be in League 2. Football and the authorities need to get a grip. Before anyone gets agitated, recall, and this is a fact, there is no gun pointed at any club to pay one single player more than they can afford. I include our club in this. Our wages are a nonsense too. SL has to pay out 20m plus each season. That is madness. Most football clubs are on a normal evaluation insolvent . It is all self inflicted and it only because players are paid too much money. Billions in revenue but clubs are bankrupt. It is BS of the highest order. From the top, look at Barcelona . Do not blame the EFL, UEFA etc, this is in the hands of accountants and banks. If any of us ran a business this way we would have been wound up ages ago. 

Football is a disgrace. So much wealth and it cannot manage to keep any semblance of ethics and responsibility. 

We are no better , look at our wage bill. We rely on SL writing a huge cheque to remain solvent, as if it is normal. It is not. Fotball need reform, Prem league needs reform, parachute payments for failure is astonishing ( just give players a 75 % drop in wages on relegation- if that is all that clubs offer they will still sign) . 

To quote a very good friend of mine. Rather famous and very rich. When responding to a call from the owner of a sporting team who had spent 2 Billion and won nothing. " My friend, if all you wanted to do was come last I could have saved you 1.8 Billion" 

Sorry Derby, you have one man to blame. Morris has destroyed you, and you deserve to pay the huge price. You will come back, but at least show some recognition that Morris has conned all of you and defrauded many. 

 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

Plus it is becoming increasingly obvious that he was only covering the cash that had to be paid out, so no PAYE/NIC for instance as that didn't have to be paid as HMRC were not going to wind the company up during the pandemic.  So with a footballer on £1 million a year the take home pay is about £550,000 a year, that would be the cash cost covered by Morris.  The actual cost to the business would be a further £590,000 in PAYE and NIC that he hadn't met.

The figures escalate significantly as for example amortisation of transfer fees and related costs are a non-cash cost as well.

That is definitely much clearer….thanks.

And also why HMRC is so high.

So disingenuous to say wages down, when you’re not paying HMRC…..who would ever guess Melly Mel would try to dupe everyone with a hard luck story.  He has certainly confirmed he isn’t an accountant, but someone who wants to try every little way to bend the rules.  His Accountants and Auditors reputations must have taken a hit too?

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, Psychopomp said:

I find it astonishing that 30 years ago Swindon were demoted 2 divisions for financial fraud. The accountants have got better, but it is quite clear Morris has played every financial trick in the book without troubling in any great way his own financial well being. He has defrauded the country (the NHS , schools, well everything) by not paying the tax bills. He has still a few hundred million. Swindon were battered, Rangers too, yet how are we talking this nonsense with Derby when it is clear the perpetrators knew what they were doing and sought to mislead and ultimately defraud the country and others. This was no accident, it was a manipulation, and took artistic accounting to the limits. Morris should be facing criminal charges. and prison Derby should be in League 2. Football and the authorities need to get a grip. Before anyone gets agitated, recall, and this is a fact, there is no gun pointed at any club to pay one single player more than they can afford. I include our club in this. Our wages are a nonsense too. SL has to pay out 20m plus each season. That is madness. Most football clubs are on a normal evaluation insolvent . It is all self inflicted and it only because players are paid too much money. Billions in revenue but clubs are bankrupt. It is BS of the highest order. From the top, look at Barcelona . Do not blame the EFL, UEFA etc, this is in the hands of accountants and banks. If any of us ran a business this way we would have been wound up ages ago. 

Football is a disgrace. So much wealth and it cannot manage to keep any semblance of ethics and responsibility. 

We are no better , look at our wage bill. We rely on SL writing a huge cheque to remain solvent, as if it is normal. It is not. Fotball need reform, Prem league needs reform, parachute payments for failure is astonishing ( just give players a 75 % drop in wages on relegation- if that is all that clubs offer they will still sign) . 

To quote a very good friend of mine. Rather famous and very rich. When responding to a call from the owner of a sporting team who had spent 2 Billion and won nothing. " My friend, if all you wanted to do was come last I could have saved you 1.8 Billion" 

Sorry Derby, you have one man to blame. Morris has destroyed you, and you deserve to pay the huge price. You will come back, but at least show some recognition that Morris has conned all of you and defrauded many. 

 

I do agree with you on SL and his check writing. However he appointed the guys that made the purchases backed them to the hilt and Signed off on the contracts. 
 

Mr Lansdown is well aware of his culpability in the over spending, but he also stands up and takes responsibility! Which is where the difference lay between the two gentlemen. It also helps that SL is massively more wealthy and is handicapped with a fraction of the hubris of MM. 

TO your general point, MM has put Derby here and as such I have little sympathy with anyone and football spending is insane. Truth be told we were lucky to have so many out of contract in June. The natural attrition was a bit of a god send financially 

[supercidered]

Quite refreshing to come back on to this thread and not having a bleating Derby fan going on about appeals and other little sh!t ideas to weasel out of this.

I'm waiting to hear the next instalment of punishment. Another 9 points deduction please. Off you little trot to League 1 and hopefully beyond.

[Cidre Monita]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

That is definitely much clearer….thanks.

And also why HMRC is so high.

So disingenuous to say wages down, when you’re not paying HMRC…..who would ever guess Melly Mel would try to dupe everyone with a hard luck story.  He has certainly confirmed he isn’t an accountant, but someone who wants to try every little way to bend the rules.  His Accountants and Auditors reputations must have taken a hit too?

Morris knew exactly what he was doing. The man is a fraudster and con artist .  He deserves jail but will leave Derby in tatters and run away on his 300/400 million. 

[Cidre Monita]

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

I do agree with you on SL and his check writing. However he appointed the guys that made the purchases backed them to the hilt and Signed off on the contracts. 
 

Mr Lansdown is well aware of his culpability in the over spending, but he also stands up and takes responsibility! Which is where the difference lay between the two gentlemen. It also helps that SL is massively more wealthy and is handicapped with a fraction of the hubris of MM. 

TO your general point, MM has put Derby here and as such I have little sympathy with anyone and football spending is insane. Truth be told we were lucky to have so many out of contract in June. The natural attrition was a bit of a god send financially 

Totally agree . It needs for example SL and Gibson to sort this nonsense and they have been involved . Scrap parachute payments and get wages in line with income . It is not rocket science. Clubs are paying stupid wages to average players . Look at us. Palmer . Love him, hate him. Never achieved anything , not a first team starter anywhere, yet we pay him a million plus a year . He was a reserve player, a junior , never made it . Not personal  against Kasey , who is a lovely lad , but FFS. He should be on a fraction of that .  Look at our income . We can go in circles , but players are paid far too much. That is the issue alongside those that agree to pay them. The very best , hell give them a fortune, but not reserves , squad players and second tier players . That is bonkers . Wage deflation has to happen. Wage reduction on relegation needs to be huge. Parachute payments eliminated . Owners to get real. 

[REDOXO]

48 minutes ago, Psychopomp said:

Totally agree . It needs for example SL and Gibson to sort this nonsense and they have been involved . Scrap parachute payments and get wages in line with income . It is not rocket science. Clubs are paying stupid wages to average players . Look at us. Palmer . Love him, hate him. Never achieved anything , not a first team starter anywhere, yet we pay him a million plus a year . He was a reserve player, a junior , never made it . Not personal  against Kasey , who is a lovely lad , but FFS. He should be on a fraction of that .  Look at our income . We can go in circles , but players are paid far too much. That is the issue alongside those that agree to pay them. The very best , hell give them a fortune, but not reserves , squad players and second tier players . That is bonkers . Wage deflation has to happen. Wage reduction on relegation needs to be huge. Parachute payments eliminated . Owners to get real. 

Gibbo and SL are tight as Chairman. (In the familiarity sense) Both former or current channel island tax exiles, with a sense of right and wrong and a sense of their hometown. 
 

Both have spoken out to be ignored by the wider football world, however an epidemic that no one two years ago saw coming has changed everything and made them seem like clairvoyants. 
 

Problem is that current contracts still stand. As Nathan Baker and Andy Weimann have found out new ones are much reduced. 
 

Wage deflation is here unless your in the top six. But it’s only a matter of time that Barcelona and Real Madrid are joined by a Spurs or an Arsenal. The hope of the Super League will not go away for those clubs!

[sh1t_ref_again]

Have very little sympathy for Derby, but do feel the route cause is down to how the Prem league clubs set up to protect themselves and try to ensure any team that may find themselves relegated with the riff-raff are able to keep better players and come bouncing back up. PP payments are just wrong, how can you give a massive advantage to certain teams in a competition, every season at least 2 teams go up with PP, leaving the poor relations to fight out for the remaining spot. 

With the prize being so big from promotion, it forces teams to overspend to complete for really the 1 promotion place, of course MM thought he could be clever and sidestep FFP and brought upon Derby the mess they are now in.

EFL commit clubs to FFP, but fair play could not be further from the truth when a prem club gets relegated and receives up to £90m over 3 years. 

Until the EFL and maybe fans find a backbone and fight back over this ridiculous practice and enforce pay cuts in to players contracts so they can meet the FFP of the division they are now in, Derby will not be the last

[Mr Popodopolous]

I've always said that Parachute Payments could be reformed as follows- but at least this is a starting point...

1. To relegated clubs in the profit and loss/counted towards FFP, only the amount equal to Championship solidarity payments.
2. I accept the cliff edge but why count it all as revenue ie through the P&L. Cashflow could be useful, helps a club to make the transition but inhibits them from spending on players.
3. This in turn encourages clubs not to gamble to excess in the PL and nudges them sharply and heavily- perhaps an EFL Business Plan would be required for pretty much all relegated clubs then- towards cutting clth from day one at this level.
4. Thereby helping both their solvency and the competitive balance of the League.
5. Could also be ringfenced to pay off or subsidise departures of higher earners, again helping both that clubs solvency and the League's competitive balance because they could spend a lot less on strengthening in Year 1 or 2.

I accept it is more nuanced in the sense that some clubs do use it as intended, but some clubs just use the headroom and gamble- whereas counting only an amount equal to Championship solidarity payments towards P&S would knock this on the head overnight basically. Solvency not extravagance should be the purpose of it.

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I've always said that Parachute Payments could be reformed as follows- but at least this is a starting point...

1. To relegated clubs in the profit and loss/counted towards FFP, only the amount equal to Championship solidarity payments.
2. I accept the cliff edge but why count it all as revenue ie through the P&L. Cashflow could be useful, helps a club to make the transition but inhibits them from spending on players.
3. This in turn encourages clubs not to gamble to excess in the PL and nudges them sharply and heavily- perhaps an EFL Business Plan would be required for pretty much all relegated clubs then- towards cutting clth from day one at this level.
4. Thereby helping both their solvency and the competitive balance of the League.
5. Could also be ringfenced to pay off or subsidise departures of higher earners, again helping both that clubs solvency and the League's competitive balance because they could spend a lot less on strengthening in Year 1 or 2.

I accept it is more nuanced in the sense that some clubs do use it as intended, but some clubs just use the headroom and gamble- whereas counting only an amount equal to Championship solidarity payments towards P&S would knock this on the head overnight basically. Solvency not extravagance should be the purpose of it.

It’s why the concept of the salary cap had legs.  Basically a moratorium / cap on existing contracts to league average, new contracts to fall n line.

[Mr Popodopolous]

28 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It’s why the concept of the salary cap had legs.  Basically a moratorium / cap on existing contracts to league average, new contracts to fall n line.

Agreed. Could definitely have worked within the current system...