Derby County

[Mr Popodopolous]

Seems that their administrators still trying to wangle the punishment down.

Clearly they can pick up discussions, but there is no real debate to be had. "You accept the -9, with 3 suspended and the business plan to finish this or you remain under the current embargo while it remains unresolved and if it remains unresolved then multiple periods go to multiple disciplinary commissions with the embargo in play for as long as it takes, and the 12 is a given for admin given no appeal in the correct timeframe". "No amnesty for administrators, no amnesty for new owners FFP wise". At least I hope the -12 is a given for admin.

Looks like we'll never see those accounts then or not for a while at best...question is will the EFL?? If not then there should be no lifting, possibly even no easing of the embargo until a final settlement materialises, a settlement along the lines of the EFL proposal.

Again, no resolution to the FFP/P&S=no end to the current professional standing embargo or the relevant embargo conditions whatever they may be. Should be made 100% clear to the club, the administrator and any prospective new owners. The EFL need to take no crap and give no quarter.

Thoughts @Hxj ? What leverage do Derby have here? It's a damn cheek that they are trying to negotiate it down, if within rights technically.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

As for Gellaw 202 and 204, it's hard to follow...

Gellaw Newco 202

2019

Other creditors and group undertakings?

Gellaw Newco 204

2019

The two match...! The debtors and the creditors appear to match for Gellaw Newco 204 and Gellaw Newco 202 respectively in 2019.

Gellaw Newco 202

2020

Gellaw Newco 204

2020

The two no longer match! Although they do in parts but who are the creditors for Gellaw Newco 204...

PPS- hopefully the time has run out in terms of any appeal vs the -12 for admin.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thoughts @Hxj ?

I would ask - what would you expect the Administrators to say? "We won't do our best to negotiate and we want to maximise the penalties?"

As previously discussed the appeal process on the Insolvency Penalty is prescriptive - there should be an announcement soon from ome of the parties if an appeal has been made.

The point regarding the accounts is entirely correct, but misleading.  In administration the company will not be pursed for outstanding accounts.  I would ask the Administrators what the position is, if the company successfully comes out of Administration as they will be required to submit accounts.

Oh and the Company Law and Companies House position is irrelevant when considering the EFL Regulations.  

Edited September 29, 2021 by Hxj

[Davefevs]

Redundancies started?

 

[mjd]

Just read they have been hit with a 5000 pound fine for trouble with Sheffield United.  As have made 20 people redundant, bad times for them. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by mjd

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 25/09/2021 at 11:42, Mr Popodopolous said:

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

Completely independent. 

Club adverts no different to any other google advert - targetted towards the user. David stopped them as soon as admin was announced.

The club at various times has invited people to supporter meetings. The recent few have had representatives from a range of 'supporter groups', such as Punjabi Rams, The Rams Trust, and of course DCFCfans. Earlier meetings during Mel's spell as owner invited a group of fans (only from the forum) as it is the largest supporter group, of which many other members of other supporter groups have accounts on it.

Rooney's comment was essentially saying we'd start preparing for next season, given 21 points pretty much means relegation. It would still be a reasonably strong team for us with all having already played first team games and all being classed as professional standing (with the exception of Williams who is a scholar).

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 28/09/2021 at 11:27, 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!

Take a look at the first team squad and tell me what you honestly think the player wage bill currently stands at then?

 

Signed under £12.5k embargo: Marshall, Byrne, Jozwiak, Kazim

Signed under £4.5k embargo: Allsop, Davies, Jagielka, Steraman, Morrison, Baldock

Recent academy graduates: Ebosele, McDonald, JBrown, Watson, Hutchinson, Stretton

Longer term academy graduates (in 2nd or 3rd season): Buchanan, Bird, Knight, Sibley

Other: Roos, Forsyth, Bielik, Shinnie, Lawrence

 

You refer to the 17/18 wage bill, yet ignore who we've offloaded since. Vydra, Weimann, Shackell, Jerome, Bent, Baird, Ledley, Nugent, Butterfield, Blackman, Pearce, Johnson, Bryson, Bennett, Keogh, Olsson, Thorne, Martin, Anya, Huddlestone, Wisdom, Carson. you could probably count on one hand how few were on less than £20k pw.

Edited September 30, 2021 by AnotherDerbyFan

[Mr Popodopolous]

27 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Completely independent. 

Club adverts no different to any other google advert - targetted towards the user. David stopped them as soon as admin was announced.

The club at various times has invited people to supporter meetings. The recent few have had representatives from a range of 'supporter groups', such as Punjabi Rams, The Rams Trust, and of course DCFCfans. Earlier meetings during Mel's spell as owner invited a group of fans (only from the forum) as it is the largest supporter group, of which many other members of other supporter groups have accounts on it.

Rooney's comment was essentially saying we'd start preparing for next season, given 21 points pretty much means relegation. It would still be a reasonably strong team for us with all having already played first team games and all being classed as professional standing (with the exception of Williams who is a scholar).

Okay I take it back a bit then, row back a bit- club ads made me wonder but if it's independent I'll go with that.

Yeah makes sense I guess, I just wondered why the lack of criticism of the club at times in the recent periods, leading up to admin- there was a strong criticism of the EFL, Gibson, Couhig etc but a relative lack- relative not absolute- in the circs of the Derby hierarchy- and by hierarchy I don't include the ordinary staff or playing side, administration must be very tough for the ordinary staff in particular.

On a side note, I will though say credit to the bulk on there for condemning the Billy Sharp chants. FFP differences aside, perhaps I am quite harsh on some on there, and unduly so on my part.

Okay that makes more sense, I thought or was a bit puzzled as to whether it was a bit of brinkmanship at play in terms of "If you dock us the FFP points, there's no real point and perhaps we'll field the kids- and that wouldn't look good for the competition". Kinda thing.

[Mr Popodopolous]

23 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Take a look at the first team squad and tell me what you honestly think the player wage bill currently stands at then?

 

Signed under £12.5k embargo: Marshall, Byrne, Jozwiak, Kazim

Signed under £4.5k embargo: Allsop, Davies, Jagielka, Steraman, Morrison, Baldock

Recent academy graduates: Ebosele, McDonald, JBrown, Watson, Hutchinson, Stretton

Longer term academy graduates (in 2nd or 3rd season): Buchanan, Bird, Knight, Sibley

Other: Roos, Forsyth, Bielik, Shinnie, Lawrence

 

You refer to the 17/18 wage bill, yet ignore who we've offloaded since. Vydra, Weimann, Shackell, Jerome, Bent, Baird, Ledley, Nugent, Butterfield, Blackman, Pearce, Johnson, Bryson, Bennett, Keogh, Olsson, Thorne, Martin, Anya, Huddlestone, Wisdom, Carson. you could probably count on one hand how few were on less than £20k pw.

When I talk of the wage bill I am talking the entirety of the club, ie the consolidated accounts inclusive of the tax and other costs associated with wages ie NI, PAYE etc- and the coaching staff too, possible that we are cross purposes in how the wage bill is measured. Rooney stopping playing will also have cut a cost.

Oh was there a £12.5k embargo in 2020? That perhaps changes things.

Then players who signed in 2018/19 and loanees last season and 2019/20, many of these will have left. Players such as Waghorn, Marriott, Jozefzoon, Evans etc. I've always thought more like £20m all told but that's the whole club/group as opposed to just the basics for the players. For the players and players basic it would of course be below £20m.

Taking the basics, quick maths suggests...

£12.5k pw embargo x 4, that is a sum total of £50k per week. £2.6m per year.

£4.5k pw embargo x 4 on 12 months, that is a sum total of £27k per week. Although two expire in Jan? £1,170,000 per year when factoring in 4 on 12 months and 2 on 6 months or thereabouts.

How much are academy grads on? Few grand a week each? Likewise how much might longer term academy grads be on?

The others, quick google searches give a sum total of maybe £70,000 per week. Although how accurate these sites are remains to be seen!

I would also add, Cocu and co- paid in a lump sum when sacked or over the remaining length of their remaining contract? If it's the latter that surely goes through the wage bill. 

If wages have come down so drastically tbh, then Covid or not it is still tricky to see how Derby are in a mess.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Saw this elsewhere- seems that RamsTrust had a meeting with the EFL.

Bit of special pleading or?

Clearly like the administrators and my post the other day, they won't say "well tbh, it's a fair cop, guv, yes we deserve the maximum".

All the same, it seems that the EFL did not agree with their take on certain issues.

An argument that the -12 for administration is a punishment and then to seek to dock points for P&S overspending would be double jeopardy- the EFL disagreed.

It is not double jeopardy and while I don't wish to criticise a Supporters Trust, I certainly don't, they should know this fact. They are two separate processes and one is automatic for clubs who suffer insolvency events, the other is financial results or in this case, restated financial results base, They are among those who should know better tbh.

Applied for the integrity of the competition is spot on, so is the clarity in terms of what is and isn't double jeopardy. What MIGHT be double jeopardy is if they were punished for the 3 years to 2018, then 2019, then the combined average without resetting the individual losses to £13m like with Birmingham and possibly Sheffield Wednesday.

For example if you took the 2016/17 and 2017/18 losses into 2018/19 without adjustment that could be double jeopardy but if you took the 2018/19 on a restated number and assessed it at a £13m P&S loss and the prior 2 were reset to £26m in total if they exceeded it, that would be okay.

Admin and P&S as 'double-jeopardy' is a total red herring though. Then again this is unprecedented for the EFL in a sense because it's unheard of to get a side going into administration still with unresolved and outstanding P&S issues,

Edited September 30, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Saw an interesting claim elsewhere- once Covid allowances factored out, once accounts restated in terms of amortisation and profit on disposal as a result being adjusted, and I can't spend long on this but once all that done, then Derby apparently posted a profit in both 2019/20 and 2020/21!?

That would be quite a gamechanger. In which case though, release the accounts- club and consolidated- as it is quite a turnaround.

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw an interesting claim elsewhere- once Covid allowances factored out, once accounts restated in terms of amortisation and profit on disposal as a result being adjusted, and I can't spend long on this but once all that done, then Derby apparently posted a profit in both 2019/20 and 2020/21!?

That would be quite a gamechanger. In which case though, release the accounts- club and consolidated- as it is quite a turnaround.

Would love to see your workings!

[Mr Popodopolous]

55 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Would love to see your workings!

Would be a good task, if it's such good news they should release them ASAP.

Was slightly confused by the claim of mitigating factors. Birmingham got one for being cooperative but Derby seem to have been anything but. The suggestion was 4 pts to 2018, 4 to 2019 and then profits thereafter...with 3 off or suspended due to the amortisation being in good faith!?

I might have a look tomorrow at the figures posted by @AnotherDerbyFan in Feb for amortisation combined with what we know to be Ffp losses losses in the 3 years to 2018 and to some extent 2018/19 and work from there.

One thing for sure, the EFL don't really have much of an incentive to rush it or be bounced into a bad deal IMO.

They can just keep the embargo rolling while issues unresolved and no new owner will want that.

[Davefevs]

 

Arsenal owed £8m by Derby for Krystian Bielik as club step up search for new owner

Derby signed midfielder Bielik for a club record fee worth up to £10m in 2019 with only a small fee paid up front

By John Percy 1 October 2021 • 6:35pm

Krystian Bielik joined Derby in August 2019 

Arsenal are still owed £8 million by Derby County for former midfielder Krystian Bielik, as the Championship club step up their search for a new owner.

Prospective buyers for Derby will have to take on liabilities worth “tens of millions of pounds” and it is understood that one of Derby’s main creditors is Arsenal, after agreeing the Bielik sale two years ago.

Derby signed Bielik for a club record fee worth up to £10 million in August 2019, when Phillip Cocu was in charge, and the structure of payments enabled them to pay a small fee up front.

With only around £2 million paid in instalments so far, it means that any interested parties will have to accept inheriting the transfer fee for the Poland international.

Earlier this month Derby were late paying an instalment to Arsenal, with the Football League briefly adding another charge to their transfer embargo before the situation was resolved.

It is understood that Arsenal have been assured they will receive the money, with Derby’s administrators including the bill in financial discussions with possible buyers.

Bielik, 23, is currently recovering from a serious knee injury - his second since signing for Derby.

There is also money owed to Polish club Lech Poznan for winger Kamil Jozwiak, which takes the overall ‘debt’ on transfer instalments over the £10 million mark. 

Kamil Jozwiak's fee is also yet to be paid 

Jozwiak, another Polish international, was signed for £4 million in September 2020.

Derby’s financial problems also include the £26 million owed to HM Revenue and Customs but Cocu, who was dismissed by Derby in November, will not receive the £5 million owed in compensation after the club went into administration last week.

Administrators Quantuma have sent out a formal marketing document to interested parties this week as they seek to sell the club.

Quantuma, the business advisory firm, remain confident of a sale and have received approaches from more than six separate parties over a potential takeover.

Working with the club’s chief executive Stephen Pearce, Quantuma have put together a document including basic details over the club's position, with a demand for guarantee of funds before parties can view the finances in more detail.

Around a dozen staff members lost their jobs this week, but it is understood that current staff and players were paid their monthly wages in full on Thursday morning.

Quantuma are also in discussions with the Football League over the additional nine-point deduction for historical financial breaches and are hopeful of negotiating a lesser punishment, though it is thought unlikely the EFL will accept it.

Derby also moved onto one point after the 1-0 victory over Reading on Wednesday night and remain unbeaten at home this season.

Wayne Rooney, the manager, said: “It is a very difficult moment we are in but the players are giving absolutely everything, so all we can do is keep working, keep trying to pick up points. 

“I think they deserve a lot of praise, a lot of credit. Looking at the table now we are back into positive points. 

“It is never nice when you are on minus points, to turn that around so quickly they deserve a lot of praise for that."

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 30/09/2021 at 18:16, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw this elsewhere- seems that RamsTrust had a meeting with the EFL.

Bit of special pleading or?

Clearly like the administrators and my post the other day, they won't say "well tbh, it's a fair cop, guv, yes we deserve the maximum".

All the same, it seems that the EFL did not agree with their take on certain issues.

An argument that the -12 for administration is a punishment and then to seek to dock points for P&S overspending would be double jeopardy- the EFL disagreed.

It is not double jeopardy and while I don't wish to criticise a Supporters Trust, I certainly don't, they should know this fact. They are two separate processes and one is automatic for clubs who suffer insolvency events, the other is financial results or in this case, restated financial results base, They are among those who should know better tbh.

Applied for the integrity of the competition is spot on, so is the clarity in terms of what is and isn't double jeopardy. What MIGHT be double jeopardy is if they were punished for the 3 years to 2018, then 2019, then the combined average without resetting the individual losses to £13m like with Birmingham and possibly Sheffield Wednesday.

For example if you took the 2016/17 and 2017/18 losses into 2018/19 without adjustment that could be double jeopardy but if you took the 2018/19 on a restated number and assessed it at a £13m P&S loss and the prior 2 were reset to £26m in total if they exceeded it, that would be okay.

Admin and P&S as 'double-jeopardy' is a total red herring though. Then again this is unprecedented for the EFL in a sense because it's unheard of to get a side going into administration still with unresolved and outstanding P&S issues,

Double jeopardy was referring to the previous charge where we were found non-complaint to FRS102, then being penalised again for failing P&S. Personally, I see P&S as a contunuation of the original charge, even if it isn't officially viewed that way. 

Double jeopardy seems to have been thrown in there by someone who doesn't understand the whole picture.

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw an interesting claim elsewhere- once Covid allowances factored out, once accounts restated in terms of amortisation and profit on disposal as a result being adjusted, and I can't spend long on this but once all that done, then Derby apparently posted a profit in both 2019/20 and 2020/21!?

That would be quite a gamechanger. In which case though, release the accounts- club and consolidated- as it is quite a turnaround.

Profit or within the limits. I'll be surprised if it's the former. Before or after P&S resets for failed periods.

On that topic, are all 3 years reset to £13m, or just years which exceed that figure?

[Hxj]

On 01/10/2021 at 21:15, AnotherDerbyFan said:

For example if you took the 2016/17 and 2017/18 losses into 2018/19 without adjustment that could be double jeopardy

Personally I've never understood that view.  The rules say that you measure over the set period and have a limit for that period.  If a club's spending control is so bad they have multiple breaches it's only their fault surely?

Any news on the appeal against the -12 points from your side?  I have heard nothing.

Oh and Derby are now on the Embargo list again for being in Administration!

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 03/10/2021 at 10:29, Hxj said:

Personally I've never understood that view.  The rules say that you measure over the set period and have a limit for that period.  If a club's spending control is so bad they have multiple breaches it's only their fault surely?

Any news on the appeal against the -12 points from your side?  I have heard nothing.

Oh and Derby are now on the Embargo list again for being in Administration!

I agree to an extent, but not in this case. 

If Birmingham had exceeded limits for 2 periods in a row just because they wanted to spend more, they would have had no excuse and would rightfully be punished for both periods.
Our case is considerably different to that... trying to stay within the limits (even if using as many loopholes as possible) only to find out 5 years later that the actual budgets were considerably different to those used.

Haven't heard anything about an appeal - very doubtful we have.

We're permanent members of the list now... I think we've all accepted that 

Edited October 4, 2021 by AnotherDerbyFan

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 01/10/2021 at 21:15, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Double jeopardy was referring to the previous charge where we were found non-complaint to FRS102, then being penalised again for failing P&S. Personally, I see P&S as a contunuation of the original charge, even if it isn't officially viewed that way. 

Double jeopardy seems to have been thrown in there by someone who doesn't understand the whole picture.

Ah okay, and apologies if I'm misinterpreting but you see it as the same charge but Part 1 and if applicable Part 2- kinda thing? Whereas other reports suggested that a charge for the amortisation would yield £100k, restatement etc and then if applicable there would be a separate charge for P&S.

Yeah agreed.

On 01/10/2021 at 21:15, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Profit or within the limits. I'll be surprised if it's the former. Before or after P&S resets for failed periods.

On that topic, are all 3 years reset to £13m, or just years which exceed that figure?

Maybe it was profit after P&S allowances. Those accounts would make for fascinating reading either way though...

I assume that it would be years that exceed- but it throws up unusual scenarios potentially, if T-2 was I dunno, a £20m P&S loss and then T-1 was a P&S loss of say £6m...that's still an aggregate of £26m so ideal conditions for a £13m target- do you reset then? Or if the aggregate was an extra £1m say, £27m- technically the reporting period going into the existing season is when aggregated either correct or easily adjustable but it's not a neat calculation. In theory though if the aggregate numbers for any club are in line with or exceeding £26m for T-1 and T-2 then I see no reason there shouldn't be a £13m target- if the combined numbers are less say £25m then the target for a club IMO should be a P&S loss not exceeding £14m for the existing season. It's probably more complex but I see business plans for this as what's in line with the existing headroom. Aggregate for T-1 and T-2=£26m, then stays as it is for £13m. Exceeding then reset accordingly, less than, then the club can spend up to the gap between £13m loss and the remaining headroom.

There's a slightly unusual thing as well, I saw on the Twitter account for Derby5hire- he posts a lot of interesting stuff, dunno if you're familiar. Seemingly Stephen Pearce is director of a new company called DCFC Licensing that has just arrived at CH. Under Derby County Football Club Limited- a company who are in administration.

On a general note, as for the appeal against the automatic administration deduction, IIRC Wigan's was announced formally within seven days of the notice, the fact nothing has been heard by now from any party would suggest not. Deadline passed surely.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Couple of other observations, one of them tbh is partially lifted from Derby5hire and his Twitter.

New company

How does a company in administration- in this instance Derby County- get assigned as a relevant legal entity to a new company or indeed would it be classed as a subsidiary?

Injuries and Professional Standing

Derby as I understand it are under the Professional Standing rule.

That is up to 23 players who have made one appearance in the relevant competition.

When they signed Jagielka and Baldock, especially the latter reports suggested that it was tied to the unavailability of Kazim-Richards. Bit of an emergency signing to January, and possibly Jagielka for Bielik- he too was until January.

Bielik was supposed to have a long term injury and so was to an extent Kazim-Richards.

If there are returns significantly ahead of time how does this cross over with the terms of the 23 of professional standing, in particular the two 'emergency' additions. I hope that the EFL will not sit idly by.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just so that I am clear tbh- ran out of time to edit- the bit that the EFL should be clear on, or clear in their mind on is the 23 squad size and Professional Standing- DCFC Licensing is neither here nor there in that regard IMO.

Baldock was more of an emergency signing than Jagielka IIRC.

Some rather bullish answers- once again- from their administrators as well.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[AnotherDerbyFan]

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Couple of other observations, one of them tbh is partially lifted from Derby5hire and his Twitter.

New company

How does a company in administration- in this instance Derby County- get assigned as a relevant legal entity to a new company or indeed would it be classed as a subsidiary?

Injuries and Professional Standing

Derby as I understand it are under the Professional Standing rule.

That is up to 23 players who have made one appearance in the relevant competition.

When they signed Jagielka and Baldock, especially the latter reports suggested that it was tied to the unavailability of Kazim-Richards. Bit of an emergency signing to January, and possibly Jagielka for Bielik- he too was until January.

Bielik was supposed to have a long term injury and so was to an extent Kazim-Richards.

If there are returns significantly ahead of time how does this cross over with the terms of the 23 of professional standing, in particular the two 'emergency' additions. I hope that the EFL will not sit idly by.

I interpretted the situation as the EFL allowing us to go up to 25 players on the understanding Kazim and Bielik will miss a 'considerable proportion of the season'
Bielik for example, picked up a similar injury at a similar time the season prior. He made his U23 return in October, made a premature return to the first team in November, before finally playing again in December. I expect the same sort of schedule again.
Kazim was supposed to be about 3 months (so mid-Nov). It's not unreasonable for those types of injuries to heal a bit quicker, so mid to late October is fair.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I interpretted the situation as the EFL allowing us to go up to 25 players on the understanding Kazim and Bielik will miss a 'considerable proportion of the season'
Bielik for example, picked up a similar injury at a similar time the season prior. He made his U23 return in October, made a premature return to the first team in November, before finally playing again in December. I expect the same sort of schedule again.
Kazim was supposed to be about 3 months (so mid-Nov). It's not unreasonable for those types of injuries to heal a bit quicker, so mid to late October is fair.

Could be the case tbh although I remember reports which suggested eg Kazim-Richards misses months and months, Bielik not returning until January so the devil might be in the detail, ie the specific nature of the permission and agreement between Derby and the EFL. 

Bielik December time sounds plausible, certainly a difference between returning to the grass, then training, fit, match fit and finally able to play consistently.

Possible I got wires crossed a little with some of these categories. The way you put it seems more reasonable. Otoh given the EFL v Mel scenario I couldn't rule out entirely a view that perhaps there was an attempt to pull a fast one.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Few other bits I've read today.

Arsenal have delayed the Bielik fee instalment, deferred whatever.

Cocu is an unsecured football creditor. As such it sounds like a new category has been invented this Autumn.

In an article.

Questions about how lenient HMRC might be debt wise, debate anyway.

The article also mentions that certain bits would need EFL approval or clemency, talking takeover options. 

The article is decent but the headline is perhaps ott. Cutting a deal or maybe restructuring over a longer period? With the usual HMRC interest rate of course.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10060109/Derby-Countys-future-hangs-balance-taxpayers-bail-club-say-analysts.html

One more thing I noticed 10 mins ago, MSD Holdings UK accounts are at CH. Accounts made up to 31st December 2020, wonder if it'll shed more light on the loans, terms etc when they're up.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more thing I noticed, when having quick searches- said it was seven days ago and I rate his views on football and the business side very highly but a rare wrong forecast...

https://www.facebook.com/talkSPORT/videos/simon-jordan-gobsmacked-by-efls-appeal-over-derby-county-ruling/596563687700328/

Simon Jordan, once the EFL were appealing the amortisation ruling- that must have come as a bit of a shock to many.  His take was- okay the stadium issue was settled (rent maybe a different debate but anyway that would require something well down the line if at all), but his take was why are the EFL appealing this amortisation issue. Change the rules he said, and they have now tbh on Fixed Asset profits for P&S but yeah- that's very unlike him to predict it wrong but nobody is 100%.

I looked at a few of my old calculations earlier based on the figures provided by the Independent Panel in the hearing for P&S to 2018 and the figures provided by @AnotherDerbyFan haven't looked in great depth at it all again and I forecast at one point on restated figures a £3.8m overspend to 2018 or in and around that number...

...Which coincidentally is a 4 point deduction, which was what Morris claimed on his interview that once restated to 2018 a 4 point deduction might have been the outcome. Unsure if he put the actual overspend £ number out there but sure he said 4 point deduction.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[fgrsimon]

Luton might have something to say about double jeopardy!

 

[Bristol Rob]

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Few other bits I've read today.

Arsenal have delayed the Bielik fee instalment, deferred whatever.

Cocu is an unsecured football creditor. As such it sounds like a new category has been invented this Autumn.

In an article.

Questions about how lenient HMRC might be debt wise, debate anyway.

The article also mentions that certain bits would need EFL approval or clemency, talking takeover options. 

The article is decent but the headline is perhaps ott. Cutting a deal or maybe restructuring over a longer period? With the usual HMRC interest rate of course.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10060109/Derby-Countys-future-hangs-balance-taxpayers-bail-club-say-analysts.html

One more thing I noticed 10 mins ago, MSD Holdings UK accounts are at CH. Accounts made up to 31st December 2020, wonder if it'll shed more light on the loans, terms etc when they're up.

With a backdrop of increased personal taxation and rising NI and a country that has spent massively during the pandemic, you have to wonder how much appetite there is from anyone to encourage HMRC to accept reduced terms.

It really isn't a good luck, knowing that they have this debt having spent tens of millions paying average players a fortune.

Time to pay is one thing, writing off a large chunk of money is something else.

That said, as a tax payer, I would rather HMRC received 10mil than nothing.

[Hxj]

4 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

That said, as a tax payer, I would rather HMRC received 10mil than nothing.

HMRC's published policy is interesting - VAS help sheet (publishing.service.gov.uk) - it applies to CVAs not Administrations but the following paragraph is interesting:

Rejecting a voluntary arrangement

We are also likely to reject a voluntary arrangement where there is evidence of:

• any proposal by any member of any organisation that requires debts owed to its members, to be paid in full, whether inside or outside of the arrangement or before or after the completion of the arrangement when all other unsecured creditors will become bound to accept a compromise of their debt. Here ‘members’ includes any prescribed associate(s) or other creditor(s) specified by the organisation

 

My personal view is looking at the matter from a different angle - how valuable is Derby's membership of the EFL?  If HMRC fail to get full payment and force the company into Liquidation it will send a very strong message to other clubs as to what will happen.  They may loose £20 million this time around, but how much more will they recoup in the long run if clubs understand that Liquidation is the ultimate outcome of failing to pay HMRC.

[WarksRobin]

 

[Hxj]

10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I looked at a few of my old calculations earlier based on the figures provided by the Independent Panel in the hearing for P&S to 2018 and the figures provided by @AnotherDerbyFan haven't looked in great depth at it all again and I forecast at one point on restated figures a £3.8m overspend to 2018 or in and around that number...

...Which coincidentally is a 4 point deduction, which was what Morris claimed on his interview that once restated to 2018 a 4 point deduction might have been the outcome. Unsure if he put the actual overspend £ number out there but sure he said 4 point deduction.

I simply don't believe that this is the whole story.  Three main reasons:

1.   Firstly Morris claims this;
2.   Was there not a £20 million amortisation hit in 2019 - I know that this will have unwinded to some extent;
3.   If it was all about just 4 points it really should have been sorted far earlier than now.

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I simply don't believe that this is the whole story.  Three main reasons:

1.   Firstly Morris claims this;
2.   Was there not a £20 million amortisation hit in 2019 - I know that this will have unwinded to some extent;
3.   If it was all about just 4 points it really should have been sorted far earlier than now.

Agree that this doesn't feel like the whole story. My interpretation was that the equivalent of a 4 point deduction was solely in the 3 years to 2018 after restatement etc.

That doesn't factor in the 3 years to 2019 or subsequent periods.

As you say a significant impairment to 2019 and even without that, this was the new evidence case but even without that then the consolidated accounts to 2019 using Derby's method was a £30m loss based on the Written Reasons last August.

The different methods of amortisation posted months ago by @AnotherDerbyFan

This combined with what we know to 2019 is a starting point for me but I've not really looked it up in depth for a while.

The impairment in 2019 only kicks in without recalculated amortisation IMO.

The years between 2015/16 and 2018/19 see an increase in amortisation and the years from 2019/20 to present see a decrease when switching from Derby way to straight line.

It's a massive mess and how do we calculate to 2019 if the 3 years to 2018 is failed.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

With a backdrop of increased personal taxation and rising NI and a country that has spent massively during the pandemic, you have to wonder how much appetite there is from anyone to encourage HMRC to accept reduced terms.

It really isn't a good luck, knowing that they have this debt having spent tens of millions paying average players a fortune.

Time to pay is one thing, writing off a large chunk of money is something else.

That said, as a tax payer, I would rather HMRC received 10mil than nothing.

Isn't there interest that accrues on HMRC debt- or does that go out the window with time to pay?

Agree it isn't a good look, although I wonder if certain Derbyshire MPs will lobby about it pushing for some clemency...levelling up all that. Just speculating though!

Edited October 6, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Bristol Rob]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Isn't there interest that accrues on HMRC debt basically- or does that go out the window with time to pay?

No idea.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, WarksRobin said:

 

The bit I don't get about the MSD stuff, well there are a few bits but whether that £15m is the sum total of all the loans/charges between MSD and the club plus of course Gellaw Newco 202 or just one of them...because there was one in August 2020 and one in October 2020.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The bit I don't get about the MSD stuff, well there are a few bits but whether that £15m is the sum total of all the loans/charges or just one of them...because there was one in August 2020 and one in October 2020.

Could this be down to the use of the word “Derby County” as opposed to the myriad of companies in play?

[Mr Popodopolous]

25 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Could this be down to the use of the word “Derby County” as opposed to the myriad of companies in play?

Yeah true...the administrators will definitely earn their cash here, it seems a proper tangled mess.

One possibility perhaps is that Mel keeps paying it off if it's the one secured against Pride Park, and charges Derby a significant rent to match the repayment schedule.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Isn't there interest that accrues on HMRC debt- or does that go out the window with time to pay?

Interest is still payable on time to pay.  But clearly any compromise will take into account the total liability including interest and late payment penalties.

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The bit I don't get about the MSD stuff, well there are a few bits but whether that £15m is the sum total of all the loans/charges between MSD and the club plus of course Gellaw Newco 202 or just one of them

The MSD accounts state simply that "one of the underlying borrowers associated with a £15 million loan held as of year end, entered into administration."

I would say that the total MSD exposure to The Stadium Group and The Football Group was £15 million (plus interest and costs).  No one in the outside world has seen the loan documentation and so no one knows who the actual borrower was.

The decision of the directors of the football club to put that company into administration triggered the rights of MSD to appoint Administrators even if the football club had no debt due to MSD because of the  the legal charges put in place.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Hxj

[Hxj]

I've just been over on www.dcfcfans.uk - definitely getting more jittery over there.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I mentioned the FFP/P&S position a little while ago and my calculations against what info is in the public domain and possible guesswork as well...following on from my last posts on it, I have to say it has suddenly gone a bit quiet since admin took over on the punishment front but the EFL must press on, for the good of the game/integrity of the competition etc. Nobody's fault but Derby's or Mel's more likely that they are facing a combination of FFP and administration simultaneously.

Anyway, going to try and recalibrate some of the numbers using a mix of the info posted by the Derby fan and info in the public domain, ie pulled from the Independent Panel last August.

P&S losses to 2018- from the Independent Panel 1st Hearing- using the Derby method

That of course was with the £74.4m valuation and the valuation shooting up to £81.1m would have cut things, as indeed Derby showed in their calculations.

This amortisation- and this is where things can start to change but so far so good...but this uses the Derby method.

With credit to @AnotherDerbyFan for this info. 

Change to the 3 years using straight Line method. Although in fact the final result varied again slightly by the time of the final results in March.

The final 3 year outcome therefore would have been- using the Derby method, a P&S loss of £21,487,000.

Total 3 year amortisation to 2018 using the Derby method- as above clearly rounding will exist

£14.95m

Total 3 year amortisation 2019 using the straight line with extension method

£35.93m

Minus the additional £2m profit on Ince.

£21,487,000 + £20,980,000-£2,000,000=£40,670,000. That's only a 3 point overspend though, not 4. 

Total 3 year amortisation using the straight line method

£36.29m

Minus the additional £2m profit on Ince.

£21,487,000 + £21,340,000 - £2,000,000=£40,827,000. Again that's only a 3 point overspend, but not 4.

The Ince profit in either case would change 3 to 4...but otherwise it's 3.

To 2019!

Projected...

...Then updated.

The sensitivity about rent...does this mean it should bump up the P&S losses or bump them down? Basic maths says that it is a fall of £617k post the 30th June as set against the projections in March.

3 year amortisation to 2019 using the Derby way

£16.18m

Total 3 year amortisation 2019 using the straight line with extension method

£38.39m

Total 3 year amortisation 2019 using the straight line method

£41.06m

Recalculated P&S to 2019 using straight line with extension method

That would be an addition of £22.21m to the £37.1m figure- minus £2m improvement for Ince and say £11m for Vydra etc.

£37.1m + £9.21m Net=£46.31m. Isn't that a 6 point deduction an overspend of £7.31m. Written Reasons for Sheffield Wednesday's sanctioning hearing suggest so.

Recalculated P&S to 2019 using straight line method

£37.1m + £11.88m Net-£48.98m. That's a 7 point deduction using that tariff.

Clearly the need to drag it back out and analyse and reset certain years where appropriate, this could take some calculating and this throws it up in the air somewhat...but there is a starting point. It doesn't evenly fall so the reset to £13m for periods and assessment against that would be interesting and this is a starting point.

Restatement of that mere 3 year period however can cause a significant ripple effect for better and worse.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Came across this article, seems interesting and pertinent to clubs moving forward.

https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/sportinglinks/2021/january/the-crown-regains-preferential-treatment-how-will-english-sports-clubs-be-affected

[Hxj]

7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This amortisation- and this is where things can start to change but so far so good...but this uses the Derby method.

With credit to @AnotherDerbyFan for this info. 

I'm not convinced by those figures, as except for 2015/16 I can't tie them into the accounts.  The relevant additional intangibles in 16/17 were £21.1 million and in 17/18 were £15.0 million and the 2018 accounts refer to acquisitions of £18.5 million.

@AnotherDerbyFan's figures might be right, just presented differently.

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 hours ago, Hxj said:

I'm not convinced by those figures, as except for 2015/16 I can't tie them into the accounts.  The relevant additional intangibles in 16/17 were £21.1 million and in 17/18 were £15.0 million and the 2018 accounts refer to acquisitions of £18.5 million.

@AnotherDerbyFan's figures might be right, just presented differently.

Those figures look pretty detailed to me, giving the amortisation in the accounts to 2019 and with different methods- and we know of it up to and including 2019/20 for the projected based on the 2019/20 spike in amortisation under the Derby way- I think Upfront would represent the total additions in a season and beyond in fact.

I looked at the additions at times in the past but not of late- and could represent a huge job trying to ascertain the average length of a contract, let alone extensions.

Either way it seems plausible to say that once restated using the EFL's preferred methodology, P&S is failed- simply a question of by how much and how many times. Oh and the thorny issue of how you recalculate T-1 and T-2 to assess T in 2019 certainly.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting to note that a Derby MP has taken to Twitter moaning and indeed wants to meet the EFL etc.

Special pleading is one way to describe it. I'm sure that fans of clubs adversely affected by Derby's financial activities in recent times would also take a strong view.

What a state of a letter, as in so one eyed...not a word of criticism of Mel, the CEO or his pet auditor, not a word about the £28m in HMRC debt, not a word about football insolvency regs to offer balance and context, not a word about multiple alleged breaches or attempted alleged breaches of P&S in recent times...

...If Derby are a pillar of the community, then she is a word that is very like pillar but has a very different meaning.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

17 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Those figures look pretty detailed to me, giving the amortisation in the accounts to 2019 and with different methods

I agree

17 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think Upfront would represent the total additions in a season.

So did I, it agrees the figure in the 2015/16 accounts, but not those for the two later years.  The accounts figures are about £10 million more, which has a significant impact on the losses.

[Mr Popodopolous]

52 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I agree

I'm inclined to go with it at this time...even using that and possibly a little bit of optimism bias on the 2018/19 upswing for profit on player sales and amortisation there is still quite possibly a fail or 2.

52 minutes ago, Hxj said:

So did I, it agrees the figure in the 2015/16 accounts, but not those for the two later years.  The accounts figures are about £10 million more, which has a significant impact on the losses.

It could be because they separate out Player registrations and Transfer fee levies and other associated costs into two categories, that's in the Sevco 5112 Limited 2018 accounts. An example would be that £30m in 2015/16 seems to correlate but once you add in that 2nd category it goes up by £4-4.9m.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

While I'm at it I forgot to ask you @Hxj

Unsecured Football Creditors- is this a new thing? Cocu was described as such in the Telegraph this week, and John Percy is a journo I rate highly but I don't see how it works without Cocu's consent and is in accordance with EFL/FA regs.

There were reports last year that he chose to forego some of his payoff which is fine- as long as he chose to.

Alternatively there could have been some contractual clause that said he would only get x if sacked by y or if sacked at all- again he would have signed that and can have few complaints.

Those scenarios aside though, there is nothing that I can see which enables the administrators to choose to get him to take a haircut and remain compliant with relevant regulations.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Unsecured Football Creditors- is this a new thing?

I don't believe so - I think that it is just a statement of the obvious of what Cocu's debt is.  It is not secured (unlike MSD) and it is a Football Creditor.

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I don't believe so - I think that it is just a statement of the obvious of what Cocu's debt is.  It is not secured (unlike MSD) and it is a Football Creditor.

Thanks. Ah yeah but the implication was that he wouldn't need to be paid in full as a result of this status. Think it even stated as much in the article...unsure the EFL would concur. If it's his choice or a contractual thing then the admin thing doesn't come into it so much. Could be sloppy reporting too.

Quote

Derby’s financial problems also include the £26 million owed to HM Revenue and Customs but Cocu, who was dismissed by Derby in November, will not receive his full compensation of around £5 million as he is now an unsecured football creditor.

Again it goes against everything I have read on it. I assume that sources close to the club or close to the administrators might be the origin here. I wonder if the administrators are trying to class him as such- there's literally nothing anywhere that differentiates between classes of football creditor however, this aside.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

18 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

the implication was that he wouldn't need to be paid in full as a result of this status

There is some wriggle room in the EFL guidance and regulations - I think that the guidance uses the word 'may' when referring to agreements with ex-managers in the sense of 'those contracts may be football creditors'.

Either way the English needs to be tightened up - the word 'fooball' or the word 'unsecured' should be omitted.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

23 minutes ago, Hxj said:

There is some wriggle room in the EFL guidance and regulations - I think that the guidance uses the word 'may' when referring to agreements with ex-managers in the sense of 'those contracts may be football creditors'.

Either way the English needs to be tightened up - the word 'fooball' or the word 'unsecured' should be omitted.

Thanks, will look to read up further on that- sounds a real new one. Golden share in exchange for settling of football creditor debt seems a fair bargaining chip also, indeed I've read that is a condition of financial restructuring.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 07/10/2021 at 08:11, Hxj said:

I'm not convinced by those figures, as except for 2015/16 I can't tie them into the accounts.  The relevant additional intangibles in 16/17 were £21.1 million and in 17/18 were £15.0 million and the 2018 accounts refer to acquisitions of £18.5 million.

@AnotherDerbyFan's figures might be right, just presented differently.

Those figures were from Transfermarkt. I may have used them at the time due to laziness.
We can get more accurate figures off the post balance sheet purchases which covers summer transfers. Estimates still required for 19/20 onwards winter windows.

PBSP = post balance sheet purchases

So I take it these calcs to figure out the total for each season:
15/16 = 22.056 + Blackman + Camara + Olsson + 0.323 (winter agent fees)
16/17 = 14.184 + Nugent + McAllister + winter agent fees (total agent fees = 1.962)
17/18 = 12.763 + Jerome + winter agent fees (total agent fees = 2.180)
18/19 = 18.541 + winter agent fees (total agent fees = 4.293)
19/20 = Bielik + agent fees (total agent fees = 2.142)
20/21 = Jozwiak + Byrne  + agent fees

Estimated Totals:
15/16 = 27.559
16/17 = 17.034
17/18 = 14.293
18/19 = 19
19/20 = 9
20/21 = 4.2

@Mr Popodopolous average original contract length is 3.3 years, but the players signed for big fees were all 4 or 5 years

[Leveller]

I find it fascinating that there is in depth analysis of the accounts on OTIB, while there seems to be very little actual analysis in the Derby forum.

[REDOXO]

17 minutes ago, Leveller said:

I find it fascinating that there is in depth analysis of the accounts on OTIB, while there seems to be very little actual analysis in the Derby forum.

Yes. It’s fascinating the depths people will go to ignore the obvious and blame someone else! Cognitive Dissonance at its finest. 
 

We wuz framed by The EFL and a cabal of deep state football chairman lead by someone named Gibson guv!

[AnotherDerbyFan]

4 hours ago, Leveller said:

I find it fascinating that there is in depth analysis of the accounts on OTIB, while there seems to be very little actual analysis in the Derby forum.

I'm amazed you read all 20k+ posts on the topic to come to that conclusion

[Mr Popodopolous]

Going to have a very quick stab at the restated to 2019 when using the figures we have to hand as my guide once we factor in restatement of T-1 and T-2 to set the target in T.

When I talk of Profit and Loss I am talking about the adjusted earnings as opposed to the actual pre tax profit or loss.

Quote

The final 3 year outcome therefore would have been- using the Derby method, a P&S loss of £21,487,000.

Total 3 year amortisation to 2018 using the Derby method- as above clearly rounding will exist

£14.95m

Total 3 year amortisation 2019 using the straight line with extension method

£35.93m

Minus the additional £2m profit on Ince.

£21,487,000 + £20,980,000-£2,000,000=£40,670,000. That's only a 3 point overspend though, not 4. 

Total 3 year amortisation using the straight line method

£36.29m

Minus the additional £2m profit on Ince.

£21,487,000 + £21,340,000 - £2,000,000=£40,827,000. Again that's only a 3 point overspend, but not 4.

The Ince profit in either case would change 3 to 4...but otherwise it's 3.

That was it to 2018.

To 2019!

The loss using the Derby method in 2016/17 was £13,407,000.

With amortisation of £5.04m as part of that.

Pretty sure the player sales were academy products in that season with Ince the following? No adjustment on profit perhaps.

With the 3 year amortisation using the straight line with extension method

£12.58m- an increase of £7.54m

With the 3 year amortisation using the straight line method

£12.64m- an increase of £7.6m.

Depending on which you choose, it's £13,407,000 rising to £20,947,000 or rising to £21,007,000.

The profit using the Derby method in 2017/18 was £7,207,000. Using the Derby method the amortisation totalled £6.54m.

Add in the Ince profit on disposal improvement of £2m as well and that's £9,207,000.

With the 3 year amortisation using the straight line with extension method

£14.10m- an increase of £7.56m.

With the 3 year amortisation using the straight line method

£14.29m- an increase of £7.75m.

Either a profit therefore of £1,647,000 or £1,457,000.

Resetting is an issue therefore, how do you reset to £13m losses? You can't! Resetting could give a huge advantage going into 2018/19 but not resetting could hinder. This is the issue, how do you assess 2018/19?

The crudest and simplest way would be to assess the remaining £39m loss after these two methods. At this stage, straight line with extension methods gives a T-1 and T-2 aggregate of £19,300,000 with a target therefore of not exceeding £19,700,000 or failing that it gives a T-1 and T-2 aggregate of £19,550,000 therefore you cannot exceed a P&S loss of £19.450,000 in 2018/19 or you fail.

Resetting 2016/17 to £13m though would give a huge advantage due to the profit in 2017/18 however.

Anyway, the figure using the Derby way in 2018/19 as per the EFL written reasons- and this was updated post June 30th 2019- was £30.9m. Amortisation=£4.6m, £11.71m and £14.13m respectively but I also reckon an £11m improvement based on Vydra etc.

£19.9m + £7.11m=£27.01m or + £9.53m=£29.43m.

The reset causes an undoubted issue though. Like I said at the start, restating one set of 3 year accounts creates huge issues that span from then ie 2015/16 to the present day.

[Hxj]

10 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

We can get more accurate figures off the post balance sheet purchases which covers summer transfers. Estimates still required for 19/20 onwards winter windows.

Thanks - appreciated.

I have reworked the figures based upon the disclosed accounts figures and assuming that they are all 4 year contracts and on a straightline basis.

			2015/16		2016/17		2017/18		2018/19
	Upfront		30.65		21.10		15.00		18.50
	Adjustment		0.00		5.56		3.96		2.22
	Derby		3.37		5.04		6.54		4.60
	Original		9.36		14.03		16.67		17.07
	Adjustment		-5.99		-8.99		-10.13		-12.47
	Cumulative		-5.99		-14.98		-25.11		-31.59

 

My estimates show the extent of the benefit gained by Derby.  The Cumulative figures are the amounts by which the losses were possibly reduced in the three year FFP window by the non FRS 102 compliant amortisation adopted by Derby.  Those figures may well be a couple of million out either way, but give a good impression.  There may well also be adjustments necessary in respect of 'Profits' on sale.

However it is clear that the level of advantage is significant.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 08/10/2021 at 12:50, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Those figures were from Transfermarkt. I may have used them at the time due to laziness.
We can get more accurate figures off the post balance sheet purchases which covers summer transfers. Estimates still required for 19/20 onwards winter windows.

PBSP = post balance sheet purchases

So I take it these calcs to figure out the total for each season:
15/16 = 22.056 + Blackman + Camara + Olsson + 0.323 (winter agent fees)
16/17 = 14.184 + Nugent + McAllister + winter agent fees (total agent fees = 1.962)
17/18 = 12.763 + Jerome + winter agent fees (total agent fees = 2.180)
18/19 = 18.541 + winter agent fees (total agent fees = 4.293)
19/20 = Bielik + agent fees (total agent fees = 2.142)
20/21 = Jozwiak + Byrne  + agent fees

Estimated Totals:
15/16 = 27.559
16/17 = 17.034
17/18 = 14.293
18/19 = 19
19/20 = 9
20/21 = 4.2

@Mr Popodopolous average original contract length is 3.3 years, but the players signed for big fees were all 4 or 5 years

Thanks, will have a proper look at this over the weekend probably. Appreciated.

What seems clear to me is that with restated accounts Derby have failed FFP to 2018 and given the Lampard year quite likely 2019.

Although even under the Derby way assuming all amortised or impaired in the usual way for P&S if still in the Championship it seems like it would have been more a matter of when not if the fail comes

Edited October 9, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more bit of news, BBC article suggests that Pride Park as part of any takeover would be sold for significantly less than it's 2018 sale price.

Tax and P&S implications? I cannot see other clubs taking that well at all. As for tax, is this just for RPTs or is it applicable even if arms length?

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more thing I forgot to ask @AnotherDerbyFan

Apologies if already covered and I missed it, but the apparent separation out of Player Registrations which I assume to be the basic fee-and the other category- which is Transfer fee levies and associated costs- how are we treating this financially/accounting wise?

Is this included in your overall figures as they too would need amortising surely.

Edited October 9, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Here we go…..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ScottishRed]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Here we go…..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paper talk surely......

Struggling to see what benefit he could get from that move.

[Loco Rojo]

Having a scan of their Forum, quite a few seem happy with this rumour.

1 even talking about PL in 5 years 

It's true what the say, turds really do attract flies.

 

[Port Said Red]

8 hours ago, ScottishRed said:

Paper talk surely......

Struggling to see what benefit he could get from that move.

Well he is on record saying that he makes most of his big decisions whilst drunk.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-40510882.amp

[Hxj]

8 hours ago, ScottishRed said:

Struggling to see what benefit he could get from that move.

Not letting my local prejudices getting in the way at all - but I can see a perfect match between the City of Derby, League One Derby County Football Club and SportsDirect.

[downendcity]

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

Not letting my local prejudices getting in the way at all - but I can see a perfect match between the City of Derby, League One Derby County Football Club and SportsDirect.

Would it be League One's Wayne Rooney's Derby County or Wayne Rooney's League one Derby County? 

[Lanterne Rouge]

15 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Would it be League One's Wayne Rooney's Derby County or Wayne Rooney's League one Derby County? 

Since they would be the most important club in it Wayne Rooney`s Derby County`s League 1?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Big news.

Seems that Derby are going to try to get the minus 12 halved citing Covid.

Nixon article. Says that will cost them £300k, says that they will have to produce 6 years worth of accounts as evidence. Doesn't say anything about the 7 day limit but says that minus 9 might have been baked in ie halved administration deduction plus another 9 for FFP ie that Settlement and they think Derby can survive with minus 15.

I hope that the EFL use anything and everything they can against Derby. Including the 23 man limit now and beyond.

That aside, this sets a troubling precedent for the EFL if the appeal gets the deduction halved.

[exAtyeoMax]

https://twitter.com/tokyobeatbox/status/1447117657476669441?s=20
 

[downendcity]

18 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Big news.

Seems that Derby are going to try to get the minus 12 halved citing Covid.

Nixon article. Says that will cost them £300k, says that they will have to produce 6 years worth of accounts as evidence. Doesn't say anything about the 7 day limit but says that minus 9 might have been baked in ie halved administration deduction plus another 9 for FFP ie that Settlement and they think Derby can survive with minus 15.

I hope that the EFL use anything and everything they can against Derby. Including the 23 man limit now and beyond.

That aside, this sets a troubling precedent for the EFL if the appeal gets the deduction halved.

This might be a simplistic take on this.

When the new ffp rules and limits were introduced Morris, in common with the owners of every other club, had 3 years in which to take the appropriate steps to bring Derby’s finances into line by the time of the first ffp reckoning. As we now know he did none of that, choosing instead to continue to spend, spend, spend in an attempt to gain promotion to the prem so that he had to resort to the convoluted “sale” of Pride Park to avoid them hitting the ffp buffers.

Had he taken the right steps financially at the outset, yes it would have compromised their promotion aims, but that was the case for every other club that did comply, but more importantly, with better financial controls back then would Derby’s position have become so dire that administration become the only option?

I used to be a mortgage adviser and remember seeing various clients following the “credit crunch” in 2008 onwards. Many of them had been living beyond their means for a few years, racking up overdraft, credit cards and personal loans and then re-mortgaging when they reached their credit limits, to consolidate their debts and bring monthly payments down. They would rinse and repeat this excercise whenever the debts reached a critical level. Unfortunately with the collapse of  property values they were no longer able to do this and their financial chickens would inevitably come home to roost. Funnily enough, according to the clients it was never their own actions that caused the problem, but they would usually cite the impact of the credit crunch/recession/ less overtime etc. etc..

I can understand the administrator looking for every means by which to improve Derby’s appeal to a prospective purchaser, but It seems to me that Covid is a convenient reason on which to hang an appeal ( and yet another option for Derby to play the victim being pursued by the heartless EFL), but it does seem to me that, like many of my mortgage clients,  Morris bought most of this on the club due to his profligacy at a time when the new financial rules should have caused him to be more financially cautious and responsible.

 

[Red Homer]

Confirmation that WRDC have lodged an appeal citing the financial impact of the coronavirus pandemic caused them to have to enter administration.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58868575