Derby County

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It is possible - it needs the passing of a Special resolution at the AGM or an EGM.  No idea what the number needed is, but it is likely to be at least 75% of all members.

It won't happen unless Derby go into Liquidation in which case it will.

As I've said previously the 'Press Releases' are written for the audience of the person paying for them, so generally I ignore them.

Just liquidation then?

Not persistent breaches and attempted breaches, surely there are limits as to what every other party can accept.

One thing that also occurred, in the event that Pride Park sold back for much less, say £20-25m I saw mooted. FFP issue?

[Hxj]

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One thing that also occurred, in the event that Pride Park sold back for much less, say £20-25m I saw mooted. FFP issue?

The new FFP Regulation:

1.1.2(b) with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22, profit/loss on disposal of any tangible fixed asset.

solves one loop hole but creates another.

I would like a 1.1.2(c) which would read:

1.1.2(c) with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22 no adjustment is made under Regulation 1.1.2(a)(i) or (b) where a profit on the the disposal of a fixed asset was included within the FFP calculations for a season before 2021/22, until the amount not so adjusted equals the profit so included.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Hxj

[REDOXO]

So. If I am reading the latest reports correctly. 
 

Derby County’s administrators are going to argue that COVID-19 is a Force Majeure and as such going into administration was out of the control of the club. While simultaneously not supplying the three previous years of accounts that would prove or disprove their case!?

@Hxj @Mr Popodopolous is that a fair summary? 

[Hxj]

5 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Derby County’s administrators are going to argue that COVID-19 is a Force Majeure and as such going into administration was out of the control of the club.

Yes.

5 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

While simultaneously not supplying the three previous years of accounts that would prove or disprove their case!?

No.

For an appeal Independent Accountants are instructed by the EFL, paid for by DCFC, to review all the financial circumstances of the club.  It has been reported that the EFL have asked for DCFC to supply six years of financial data to enable the report to be prepared.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

So. If I am reading the latest reports correctly. 
 

Derby County’s administrators are going to argue that COVID-19 is a Force Majeure and as such going into administration was out of the control of the club. While simultaneously not supplying the three previous years of accounts that would prove or disprove their case!?

@Hxj @Mr Popodopolous is that a fair summary? 

It's astonishing chutzpah isn't it.

They according to Nixon needed/need to submit 2015/16 to 2020/21 for thus purpose. However Nixon suggested that those accounts were only applicable for this case, don't need to submit to CH while in administration but surely P&S figures to the EFL.

We already know the substance of 2015/16 to 2017/18, save for the amortisation bit. Amortisation is a non-cash expense.

My understanding is that the accounts go to an independent firm of accountants who produce a report for the hearing.

[REDOXO]

14 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Yes.

No.

For an appeal Independent Accountants are instructed by the EFL, paid for by DCFC, to review all the financial circumstances of the club.  It has been reported that the EFL have asked for DCFC to supply six years of financial data to enable the report to be prepared.

Six years of financial data? So not the annual reports for those years themselves? 
 

I know you two guys follow this stuff closely. Are there any other Championship clubs that have not submitted reports to the EFL over the same period?

@Hxj @Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

5 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Six years of financial data? So not the annual reports for those years themselves? 

The actual transactional data is considerably more valuable than the accounts.  This is because the accounts can be constructed from the data, but the data cannot be obtained from the accounts.

No other EFL clubs (all three divisions) currently have any embargoes for missing accounts or FFP data.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Hxj

[ScottishRed]

@Mr Popodopolous and @Hxj you both do some fabulous posts on this and all the financial stuff - thank you.

[Mr Popodopolous]

50 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The new FFP Regulation:

1.1.2(b) with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22, profit/loss on disposal of any tangible fixed asset.

solves one loop hole but creates another.

I would like a 1.1.2(c) which would read:

1.1.2(c) with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22 no adjustment is made under Regulation 1.1.2(a)(i) or (b) where a profit on the the disposal of a fixed asset was included within the FFP calculations for a season before 2021/22, until the amount not so adjusted equals the profit so included.

Thanks for the clarification. It's another loophole then,  would the EFL just have to accept it? I can't see other clubs letting them quietly. Can't see the EFL being at all happy about it either. The club or fans are hopeful for a takeover by January, these things can take time, especially to unpick complex issues...

1.1.2 (c) sounds interesting, what would that do in plain English? Amount not so adjusted- what would it mean for this if that was in?

[Davefevs]

I’m just waiting to see whether they have anyone credible interested.  I suspect not at this point.  In some respects a series of defeats might make things easier.  Results are making the -12 look like it can be overcome.

[ScottishRed]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

I’m just waiting to see whether they have anyone credible interested.  I suspect not at this point.  In some respects a series of defeats might make things easier.  Results are making the -12 look like it can be overcome.

That is my fear too @Davefevs they just may survive this, which would be appalling.

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

That is my fear too @Davefevs they just may survive this, which would be appalling.

I don’t think they will survive once the -9 gets added too, but it gives them hope…and the Administrators are using that to try anything at the mo’.  I pray they lose every game this season.

[chinapig]

10 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

That is my fear too @Davefevs they just may survive this, which would be appalling.

It would also likely be the death of P&S so unless the government agrees Tracey Crouch's recommendation* for an independent regulator it will be a free for all.

*they won't as the Premier League will object and money talks. They just have to agree to pay for Boris' next holiday.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, ScottishRed said:

That is my fear too @Davefevs they just may survive this, which would be appalling.

 

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t think they will survive once the -9 gets added too, but it gives them hope…and the Administrators are using that to try anything at the mo’.  I pray they lose every game this season.

 

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

It would also likely be the death of P&S so unless the government agrees Tracey Crouch's recommendation* for an independent regulator it will be a free for all.

*they won't as the Premier League will object and money talks. They just have to agree to pay for Boris' next holiday.

 

Are we all a bit cross purposes?

No way that they survive - 21. The hoped for - 9 with 3 more suspended  P&S deduction should also come with a business plan.

In addition, there will be embargo type regulations still in play until such time as these are satisfied.

Finally @chinapig how does it end P&S? The EFL have significantly more leeway now. ie Fixed Asset loophole shut, plus no need to rush to get it done by June 30th unlike Harvey seemed happy to do- there is no upper limit as the EFL have said.

Though it would be funny if Derby got severely punished over amortisation then the amortisation laws were reformed.

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more message, well it's two fold.

To some of the charmers on DCFCFans

By no means all, but a few objectionable ones- your knuckles must really drag given your reaction to critical if valid points. Derby away is next Spring is it?

To David

1. Ah yes- the King- well so he thinks. Ads stopping for the site as club into admin- or potentially. A few words of comfort- "Get a proper job" as a chant has gone in the past.
2. Secondly. Say what you will some of it is blah blah, but anyway whatever it is, one good thing that I am highly grateful for- at least I don't live in Grimsby. That is a place that has really seen better days although I expect the fish and chips are excellent...
3. PS- when are you going to release the minutes- one of Mel's favoured sons (not literally), the Mel has now gone- yet still you sit on these. Letting down your loyal fans eh, bless.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[REDOXO]

6 hours ago, Hxj said:

The actual transactional data is considerably more valuable than the accounts.  This is because the accounts can be constructed from the data, but the data cannot be obtained from the accounts.

No other EFL clubs (all three divisions) currently have any embargoes for missing accounts or FFP data.

Ok so Derby County’s administrators are mounting an appeal based upon no accounts for previous years.
 

In your words transactional data that has not to this point been seen and the idea that this ‘data’ will show that they were never in financial difficulty despite never having produced accounts for the several years in advance of Covid.

Is that a fair summary?

[chinapig]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Finally @chinapig how does it end P&S?

It's a worst case scenario but my thought is if Derby win their appeal against the 12 point deduction on grounds other clubs regard as spurious owners may decide it's not worth complying if there are no or insufficient consequences.

Given the Sheff Wed precedent there is also the possibility the 9 point penalty could be reduced on appeal.

So we could reach a point where owners are so exasperated they conclude that no regime will work so simply give up on it and we are back to a free for all.

Of course the clubs could significantly beef up the powers and resources of the Board and Executive but I doubt that will happen unless there is government pressure. I have already said why I think that won't happen.

Who knows in the meantime what the knock on effect of potential changes in UEFA policy might be?

[AnotherDerbyFan]

7 hours ago, REDOXO said:

Ok so Derby County’s administrators are mounting an appeal based upon no accounts for previous years.
 

In your words transactional data that has not to this point been seen and the idea that this ‘data’ will show that they were never in financial difficulty despite never having produced accounts for the several years in advance of Covid.

Is that a fair summary?

That's not quite right. It's not about 'financial difficulty', but whether in balance of probabilities, we entered administration solely because of Covid.

There are many ways that statement can be interpreted.

In the basic sense, if we had the £20m cash we missed out on as a result of Covid, would we avoid admin completely?

A little example here of how much money if left in Mel's piggy bank. Let's say he had £30m at the start of 2020 (before lockdown). The plan being to slowly reduce his input so that the club will run at an organic profit. By the end of the 21/22 season, that goal was set to be achieved, and no more money ever needs to be taken from his piggy bank.

However, Covid struck which ruined those plans. Sales made in the summer to get some cash in and others let go to cut the wage bill. Fans still not allowed in so further sales and cutbacks necessary in the Jan window. But still, not money left by Autumn 2021.

[hertsexile]

Derby Just trying to dodge the bullet once again looking for every loop hole in the book to upset  legal process rather than facing the music. 

[AnotherDerbyFan]

43 minutes ago, hertsexile said:

Derby Just trying to dodge the bullet once again looking for every loop hole in the book to upset  legal process rather than facing the music. 

It's not a loophole if it's written in plain English "you can do 'this' if 'that' happens"

[REDOXO]

3 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

That's not quite right. It's not about 'financial difficulty', but whether in balance of probabilities, we entered administration solely because of Covid.

There are many ways that statement can be interpreted.

In the basic sense, if we had the £20m cash we missed out on as a result of Covid, would we avoid admin completely?

A little example here of how much money if left in Mel's piggy bank. Let's say he had £30m at the start of 2020 (before lockdown). The plan being to slowly reduce his input so that the club will run at an organic profit. By the end of the 21/22 season, that goal was set to be achieved, and no more money ever needs to be taken from his piggy bank.

However, Covid struck which ruined those plans. Sales made in the summer to get some cash in and others let go to cut the wage bill. Fans still not allowed in so further sales and cutbacks necessary in the Jan window. But still, not money left by Autumn 2021.

Hi @AnotherDerbyFan  yes on the balance of probability not entering accounts to the EFL for several seasons and continuing not to, was not the action of a club that were acting within the spirit or the letter of the rules, most would suggest. 
 

However the administrators and/or independent accountants will now attempt to prove that this flouting of the rules was not related to the eventual entering administration, which was solely losses from Covid?

Is this a fair summary?

 

 

[downendcity]

It seems to me that Morris took the club into administration when he was unable to find a buyer and was no longer prepared to underwrite the club's losses. I say no longer prepared to as from the figures I've seen quoted re his personal wealth it would appear he would have been able to. 

As far as I can see, the primary reasons he couldn't find a buyer were  the club's debt levels and the jeopardy caused by the EFL's pursuit of rule breaches, punishment for which (embargo and points deduction) could seriously jeopardise their championship status. 

Both these issues were caused by Morris's decision to ignore Ffp rules, but to continue spending to try and secure promotion, all of which occurred well before the pandemic struck. 

Also if the pandemic was deemed the cause of administration, why did it not take place until we are into the first season when crowds have returned and cash flow would be returning to levels close to pre Covid levels? 

Finally, I think I'm right in saying that Derby has a substantial tax liability outstanding. If this, or a sizeable chuck of it, predates the pandemic then I'd say it was a clear indicator of financial problems being there for some time and that Covif is a red herring. 

Lastly, if Covid is the cause of Derby's administration, then where is the list of all the other less wealthy EFL clubs that have similarly failed over the last 18 months?

 

 

[REDOXO]

13 minutes ago, downendcity said:

It seems to me that Morris took the club into administration when he was unable to find a buyer and was no longer prepared to underwrite the club's losses. I say no longer prepared to as from the figures I've seen quoted re his personal wealth it would appear he would have been able to. 

As far as I can see, the primary reasons he couldn't find a buyer were  the club's debt levels and the jeopardy caused by the EFL's pursuit of rule breaches, punishment for which (embargo and points deduction) could seriously jeopardise their championship status. 

Both these issues were caused by Morris's decision to ignore Ffp rules, but to continue spending to try and secure promotion, all of which occurred well before the pandemic struck. 

Also if the pandemic was deemed the cause of administration, why did it not take place until we are into the first season when crowds have returned and cash flow would be returning to levels close to pre Covid levels? 

Finally, I think I'm right in saying that Derby has a substantial tax liability outstanding. If this, or a sizeable chuck of it, predates the pandemic then I'd say it was a clear indicator of financial problems being there for some time and that Covif is a red herring. 

Lastly, if Covid is the cause of Derby's administration, then where is the list of all the other less wealthy EFL clubs that have similarly failed over the last 18 months?

 

 

It does seem that simple. Doesn’t it?

But hey maybe we will all get a surprise!

[Davefevs]

Beautiful summary @downendcity .

Looks like Morris continued to pay the players, but not the Tax and NI (plus probably Employers NI too).  That’s a conscious decision isn’t it, knowing failure to pay players could lead to players walking out of their contract and potential points deduction too.

I guess Mel just walks away.

Could he have found a buyer if he’d priced it as a Lg1 club?  Or is that the problem, nobody would buy it as a Lg1 club with the debts associated?

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Echo what Dave said, fantastic summary by @downendcity 

Paying wages but disregarding- perhaps another word might be not passing on, the Tax, NI, maybe Employers NI- is this lawful or otherwise- or does Limited Liability supersede this?

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, hertsexile said:

Derby Just trying to dodge the bullet once again looking for every loop hole in the book to upset  legal process rather than facing the music. 

Don't disregard either who their administrator is- or one of them anyway. Mr. Andronikou has form for this so in a way him and Derby are a perfect match.

He made noises about appealing their -9 in the PL in 2009/10.

Quote

Speaking about the expected nine-point deduction for entering administration, Mr Andronikou said: "Yes, it is a Premier League rule but that rule has never been tested, and that's what I will do."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8570134.stm

He appealed about their non-granting of a European license in 2010- being in the FA Cup final could have seen them in line for a Europa League place albeit UEFA rules surely would have took it off the table- and the PL and FA weren't backing it anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/apr/23/portsmouth-europa-league-appeal-blocked

He threatened to go the CAS regarding it.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/portsmouth-told-there-can-be-no-late-application-for-europa-league-place-jp3kfk95zgh

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/172098/Andrew-Andronikou-They-keep-on-punishing-us

He complained about the Football Creditors rule.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/apr/23/portsmouth-premierleague

Lastly, he was on the record as criticising the EFL for conditions stalling prospective takeovers.

Well I cannot find it now but I remember seeing it the other day.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I should also add, could the EFL act in a difficult manner- ie within their regulations- in terms of the takeover.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appendix-3-owners-and-directors-test/

This offers a fair few hoops to jump through these days for any prospective new owners- although with Mike Ashley, it might he hard to find a hoop large enough for him to fit through.

Quite like parts of Section 3 in particular.

Quote

3              Acquiring of Control

3.1          If any Person proposes to acquire Control of a Club:

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

3.1.2      the League shall have the power to require the Club and/or the Person who proposes to acquire Control to appear before it and to provide evidence of the ultimate source and sufficiency of any funds which that Person proposes to utilise to acquire Control and/or invest in or otherwise make available to the Club.

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

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

3.2.2      the ability to impose such other conditions,

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

3.3          No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:

3.3.2      The League provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule 3.1.1(b); and

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

I expect that these Regulations could tie a club and prospective new owners up in red tape for a while.

If the new owners are tricky, the EFL can simply impose a full on registration embargo- like with Charlton- until such time as they are satisfied basically.

I also believe that the EFL need to apply every single letter of every single regulation to this club and their new owners, until such time as they are satisfied.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Well ran out of time to edit- again- but in so far as is possible, might be an idea to treat the new owners or the club under new ownership the same as if it were still run by Mel Morris.

What's your take on the Owners and Directors requirements @AnotherDerbyFan ? Strikes me that the EFL could use those to be pretty difficult- as they should if they have any misgivings whatsoever, my above line notwithstanding and disregarded. You may or may not be able to tell but if I was in a position of power at the EFL what with Derby's recent history and what with outstanding issues, I would be as difficult as the regulations would allow me to be. Not vindictively you understand, just to play as hardball as possible as Derby plainly can't be trusted.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, downendcity said:

It seems to me that Morris took the club into administration when he was unable to find a buyer and was no longer prepared to underwrite the club's losses. I say no longer prepared to as from the figures I've seen quoted re his personal wealth it would appear he would have been able to. 

As far as I can see, the primary reasons he couldn't find a buyer were  the club's debt levels and the jeopardy caused by the EFL's pursuit of rule breaches, punishment for which (embargo and points deduction) could seriously jeopardise their championship status. 

Both these issues were caused by Morris's decision to ignore Ffp rules, but to continue spending to try and secure promotion, all of which occurred well before the pandemic struck. 

Also if the pandemic was deemed the cause of administration, why did it not take place until we are into the first season when crowds have returned and cash flow would be returning to levels close to pre Covid levels? 

Finally, I think I'm right in saying that Derby has a substantial tax liability outstanding. If this, or a sizeable chuck of it, predates the pandemic then I'd say it was a clear indicator of financial problems being there for some time and that Covif is a red herring. 

Lastly, if Covid is the cause of Derby's administration, then where is the list of all the other less wealthy EFL clubs that have similarly failed over the last 18 months?

 

 

Unsure how it breaks down but reportedly as high as £28m in a total debt to HMRC. Winding up order from HMRC reportedly in Jan 2020- something very odd, usually these make the news at the time- for professional football clubs certainly.

Very good points though.

On a side note, Rooney is at it again- saying the administrators need to find the right buyer and he mentions building up the team- I don't see how given that any prospective new owners will have to agree a 2 year business plan with the EFL or failing that would fall into an embargo. I doubt that in the near, perhaps medium term any business plan would allow extravagant spending.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[ScottishRed]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Unsure how it breaks down but reportedly as high as £28m in a total debt to HMRC. Winding up order from HMRC reportedly in Jan 2020- something very odd, usually these make the news at the time- for professional football clubs certainly.

Very good points though.

On a side note, Rooney is at it again- saying the administrators need to find the right buyer and he mentions building up the team- I don't see how given that any prospective new owners will have to agree a 2 year business plan with the EFL or failing that would fall into an embargo. I doubt that in the near, perhaps medium term any business plan would allow extravagant spending.

There is something odd there re HMRC. My understanding, could be wrong, is that they have been ‘ after’ football for a while as they believe there  are a number of things effecting both clubs and players that are breaking the rules.

They tried to ‘get’ Glasgow Rangers and, to an extent succeeded, but not to the full extent that they should have - have a Google of Employee Benefit Trusts!

Rangers should have had to start back in the West of Scotland league but the SFA and the SPFL tried to simply get them demoted to the Scottish Championship - this required a vote by all SPFL clubs, which looked initially that it would be successful.

Then the fans of every other club stepped in and made it crystal clear that should their club vote in agreement there would be no point because they would no longer be attending ANY games, not just against the cheats.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

There is something odd there re HMRC. My understanding, could be wrong, is that they have been ‘ after’ football for a while as they believe there  are a number of things effecting both clubs and players that are breaking the rules.

They tried to ‘get’ Glasgow Rangers and, to an extent succeeded, but not to the full extent that they should have - have a Google of Employee Benefit Trusts!

Rangers should have had to start back in the West of Scotland league but the SFA and the SPFL tried to simply get them demoted to the Scottish Championship - this required a vote by all SPFL clubs, which looked initially that it would be successful.

Then the fans of every other club stepped in and made it crystal clear that should their club vote in agreement there would be no point because they would no longer be attending ANY games, not just against the cheats.

 

Very interesting stuff about the Rangers situation thanks. Didn't know that. Fair play to the fans, I think that they got off lightly still- and the fact that Ibrox and Murray Park were not sold off to the highest bidder as part of the liquidation process, dunno why.

I have to wonder if the action of fans could set a precedent with cases that are egregiously bad. Derby County fit the bill in this regard IMO. It probably won't but a mass refusal to play or acknowledge the club until certain conditions met, I wonder?

Regarding HMRC, they've long hated the Football Creditor Rule but lost a court case in 2012 about this matter. I wonder if the current national financial position plus the Crown Preference for certain categories of HMRC debt, well I wonder if they could be setting up for another go at it.

A bit that I find odd about the Derby winding up order is that no media outlet picked up on it back in January 2020.

Google eg Southend winding up order, or Birmingham winding up order or likely many clubs and there will be articles from around the time it was dismissed, granted rolled over- whatever. News of Derby's didn't emerge for 18 months!? 

[downendcity]

One thing that struck me when thinking about the Derby situation. 

While the EFL will want to ensure that Derby receive full and proper punishment for rules breaches, what will be their view if those penalties, and likely relegation, put off potential buyers? 

Will the EFL want to see a major club go under on its watch? Will they want to attract criticism that its actions lead to a clubs demise? 

I'm not suggesting that the EFL has done anything wrong in its pursuit of Derby over Ffp issues, but could well imagine it being prepared to rein back some of the penalties, especially if pressured by the administrator that liquidation would be the only option if no buyer is secured. 

By the same token, I would not put it past a prospective buyer to "suggest" such an approach to the administrator, as leverage to get the club on a better footing before purchase, i. e. half a chance of staying in the championship. 

I hope I'm proved wrong, but am  increasingly feeling that Derby will start next season as a championship. If that happens then who said crime doesn't pay? 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

One thing that struck me when thinking about the Derby situation. 

While the EFL will want to ensure that Derby receive full and proper punishment for rules breaches, what will be their view if those penalties, and likely relegation, put off potential buyers? 

Will the EFL want to see a major club go under on its watch? Will they want to attract criticism that its actions lead to a clubs demise? 

I'm not suggesting that the EFL has done anything wrong in its pursuit of Derby over Ffp issues, but could well imagine it being prepared to rein back some of the penalties, especially if pressured by the administrator that liquidation would be the only option if no buyer is secured. 

By the same token, I would not put it past a prospective buyer to "suggest" such an approach to the administrator, as leverage to get the club on a better footing before purchase, i. e. half a chance of staying in the championship. 

I hope I'm proved wrong, but am  increasingly feeling that Derby will start next season as a championship. If that happens then who said crime doesn't pay? 

They almost went down last season with no points deduction.

Ive always said eventually a “big club” (imho Derby are) will go to the wall.  Derby might be it.  Sometimes a lesson has to be learned the hard way.

[Mr Popodopolous]

This situation has its similarities with Portsmouth IMO. Huge HMRC claim, Andronikou. Yes Derby a bigger club but football doesn't learn it seems.

There was a feeling back in 2010 that Portsmouth might have been the lesson- their final set of accounts in the PL prior to really going wrong had wages at over 100% of turnover in the PL...2008/09!?

As for the here and now, any watering down would bring issues of its own. Lack of credibility to the League, if administration is watered down then expect a lot to try it.

I also think that as a club they have acted appallingly and should be treated as such. Overspending is one thing but their overall conduct and attitude has been truly shocking. So are a lot of their fans.

Also possible that they have burnt one too many bridges at the EFL. If I was at the EFL I would be seeking to enforce everything to the max for some time to come.

I can imagine that if some of those in the game read their forum as well their position would remain pretty hard. The blame game, deflection, obfuscation, arrogance to name a few, goes beyond anything I've seen at our level.

PPS. The questions and observations by RamsTrust in their meeting with the EFL, some were truly hard to fathom.

Edited October 16, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I believe a few on the Derby forum have jumped the shark tbh.

One sage suggested that Kieran Maguire and his input is less than trustworthy because he is...you'll laugh I expect- a stooge for the EFL!? 

One also claimed that the EFL might kill Derby off as a final vindictive act, although I apologise if it's out of context.

Derby's position is largely the result of their own actions and therefore the actions that may or may not occur are largely down their actions as a club. If their club goes down, it's mostly a result of the actions that Mel took.

Additionally saw a bit which I haven't been able to find or looked for in great depth which suggested Rooney asked if the EFL have an agenda against Derby or asked if off field disputes are reflected in on field decisions.

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/16446073/efl-derby-administrators-prove-complete-season/

Now isn't this supposed to be done back in the summer/August? As in proof of funds to start the season...why did the EFL not take a bigger stand at that time?

However it seems like it is in accordance with the regulations so the club or fans can have no cause for complaint. I might also add that the devil is in the detail a bit, eg is this £13.5m just wages or total running costs, applicable to the club accounts only or to the consolidated- because the club will gain or will have gained revenue from the subsidiaries of the consolidated accounts- namely Club DCFC, Stadia DCFC- DCFC Academy Limited has costs but does it directly bring in revenue?

Edited October 17, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

40 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/16446073/efl-derby-administrators-prove-complete-season/

Now isn't this supposed to be done back in the summer/August? As in proof of funds to start the season...why did the EFL not take a bigger stand at that time?

However it seems like it is in accordance with the regulations so the club or fans can have no cause for complaint. I might also add that the devil is in the detail a bit, eg is this £13.5m just wages or total running costs, applicable to the club accounts only or to the consolidated- because the club will gain or will have gained revenue from the subsidiaries of the consolidated accounts- namely Club DCFC, Stadia DCFC- DCFC Academy Limited has costs but does it directly bring in revenue?

The article is contradicting itself….say £13.5m for a few months (assume to January) but headline says season.

[chinapig]

21 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The article is contradicting itself….say £13.5m for a few months (assume to January) but headline says season.

Didn't the administrators say they needed to raise a £5m loan to get to January?

[Ska Junkie]

As someone who is interested but hasn't been following it in detail, are Derby likely to get a further points deduction this season?

[Davefevs]

24 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Didn't the administrators say they needed to raise a £5m loan to get to January?

Dunno, I know they said they could run to January with some funding….wasn’t sure of the amount.  The Wigan Administrators were seen by most neutrals as being decent folk with a good pragmatic approach.  This lot seem like Mel’s dodgy mates.

[Mr Popodopolous]

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The article is contradicting itself….say £13.5m for a few months (assume to January) but headline says season.

Thanks- had only read it quickly and not properly tbh, that's a good point.

It's interesting insight but still leaves a few unanswered questions. Wages are a key but by no means the sole running cost of a club.

27 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Didn't the administrators say they needed to raise a £5m loan to get to January?

I previously read that they had enough cash to last until January, seems pretty unclear in any case.

25 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

As someone who is interested but hasn't been following it in detail, are Derby likely to get a further points deduction this season?

See no reason why not, though my preferred solution would be to have it 'bite' at the time that it takes most effect. Application at the earliest opportunity should hole their survival in the Championship chances below the waterline but.. can't be bothered to get a flowchart up...

1. If Derby stay up by less than 9 pts then you add it in May- down you go!
2. If Derby go down then you place it in League One- down to the bottom of League One you go!
3. If Derby stay up by in excess of 9 pts, then you add it to the start of 2022/23- in other words you start on -9 and under the EFL business plan that's part of the package.

If stay up by 9 pts, then which season would depend on whether they go down on GD.

Always believed that points deductions should apply at the time they have most effect, but probably my scenario wouldn't be possible- so it and along with Reading's, should be added at the earliest opportunity.

Edited October 17, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

As someone who is interested but hasn't been following it in detail, are Derby likely to get a further points deduction this season?

Yes, should be another minus 9 coming (plus 3 suspended)

[Mr Popodopolous]

What @Hxj said a while ago rings true- Forest fans of late anyway, make my approach in some respects to Derby look fairly light hearted- a few posts off their forum lately.

Despite the selective vision a few on DCFCFans have I don't want them to go under. I want them to suffer, absolutely I do, but going under a step too far. I have suggested in anger that I would, or certain other things that I regret and indeed in response to some of the village idiots who frequent DCFCFans- not all but a % fit that description- but deep down, nah suffering is acceptable.

The last page of that thread makes for funny reading.

https://www.forestforum.co.uk/threads/44511-The-demise-of-Wayne-Rooney-s-D***y-County-(in-Administration)/page611

DCFCFans should have a byline as you go onto the site...

"Welcome to DCFCFans- if you are from a local village, you maybe in luck- as we know in Derbyshire, 5 or 6 appear to be missing their idiots, including the home of the administrator/head of the site". Well a bit less clunky but something to work with.

Edited October 17, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

The victimhood is rolling on I see...

I will seek to find the full quotes.

Plus, seems Derby fans were blaming the EFL- not just online views then, but chants of "Eff the EFL" in the away end at Preston Saturday.

I wonder when the majority will grasp that their current position is largely the fault of Mel Morris and Stephen Pearce, plus that they might need some good will at some stage.

Found this from the time it was announced last September that the EFL were due to appeal the verdict.

Aged well!! 

Not going to get irate but they really deserve all they get on current trends, don't they?

Interested to know why they think they are being singled out when Bury seemed not to even get that privilege, Bury were suspended in early August IIRC and kicked out within a month- give or take. Proof of funds was a deal breaker in their case was it not. Granted Bury were not in administration, but back in August, did Mel show proof of funds for the season- if not then why were they allowed to start the season.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

Which will happen first, City win a home game or Derby receive their full and proper points deduction? 

[Midred]

48 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Which will happen first, City win a home game or Derby receive their full and proper points deduction? 

Hopefully tomorrow! (Both)!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Putting the general criticism aside for a second.

Mel obviously gets plenty of blame but to what extent is Stephen Pearce as the CEO culpable? All speculation of course, and I'm sure @AnotherDerbyFan would have some insight/views- would he have been pushing, guiding the club in pursuit of these loopholes as a qualified accountant or more a case of doing the owner's bidding?

[Hxj]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

would he have been pushing, guiding the club in pursuit of these loopholes

My understanding is that he was standing at the front cheering the army on.  All lambs to the slaughter in the end.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

My understanding is that he was standing at the front cheering the army on.  All lambs rams to the slaughter in the end.

FYTY.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[REDOXO]

Reading there forum. Particularly the latest one about Morris is an eye opener. Its seems split between Mel Morris is the problem and Everything else is the problem but not Us. 
 

How much do the owe the inland revenue?

[Mr Popodopolous]

According to reports, £28m- although reports seem to range from £20m at the lower estimate to £28m in total so it's not certain the full amount.

It's interesting isn't it @REDOXO the EFL are the dastardly ones to blame in parts, indeed seen it on Twitter as well- how dare the EFL request that they have the funding to fulfil their requirements for the season? Lots of Derby fans on Twitter didn't like that but by no means all. Further, I don't see how a new owner can just start spending again- is there not some kind of requirement for a business plan to be agreed by new owners? Although I guess there is spending and spending...

Indeed, if not for the administration bit, surely new owners would still be bound by the FFP issue which means a) A likely deduction and b) A business plan of some sort.

Then there's the part about the individual components of the embargo- IIRC one is for accounts not submitted to the EFL, one is for accounts not submitted to CH and one is for accounts not submitted for FFP reasons- administration or not, I don't see how you can remove those charges until satisfied and when I say satisfied, I mean until resolved to the EFL's satisfaction.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[zippycar]

And presumably the HMRC debt is increasing by the week/month, i.e. every time someone is paid, as I assume that the administrators aren't immediately weighing over the Income Tax and NI deductions, which for the high earners would be over 50% of their wages?

[The Constant Rabbit]

Anyone give me the cliff notes?

 

12 pts this year and 9 next?

 

@Mr Popodopolous

4 minutes ago, zippycar said:

And presumably the HMRC debt is increasing by the week/month, i.e. every time someone is paid, as I assume that the administrators aren't immediately weighing over the Income Tax and NI deductions, which for the high earners would be over 50% of their wages?

Is your avatar Precious McKenzie?

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 17/10/2021 at 17:01, Davefevs said:

The article is contradicting itself….say £13.5m for a few months (assume to January) but headline says season.

A few months being the end of the season.

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The victimhood is rolling on I see...

The penalty decisions against us is atrocious though. 2 stonewall penalties vs Forest and another vs Preston spring to mind. The second penalty shout vs Preston looked more like a loss of balance than a foul. There have been a couple other strong shouts this season, and quite a few soft ones.. yet not a single given. You'd expect these things t even out somewhat, but we do tend to be on the wrong side of the decisions a lot more than the decisions being in our favour.

The ref vs Preston was one of the worst displays I've ever seen, missing obvious fouls against both sides. A Preston player got clipped on the edge of their box as they were making a breakaway... no foul and Derby have the ball to start another attack. Earlier in the game, Knight knocked the ball past the defender, who made no attempt to play the ball but blocked Knight off from getting on the end of it and knocked him to the floor. Again no foul given, but this time Preston have the ball to start an attack of their own.

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I will seek to find the full quotes.

Plus, seems Derby fans were blaming the EFL- not just online views then, but chants of "Eff the EFL" in the away end at Preston Saturday.

Nothing new. That been chanted at every game since the original charge.

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

I wonder when the majority will grasp that their current position is largely the fault of Mel Morris and Stephen Pearce, plus that they might need some good will at some stage.

Found this from the time it was announced last September that the EFL were due to appeal the verdict.

Aged well!! 

Not going to get irate but they really deserve all they get on current trends, don't they?

Interested to know why they think they are being singled out when Bury seemed not to even get that privilege, Bury were suspended in early August IIRC and kicked out within a month- give or take. Proof of funds was a deal breaker in their case was it not. Granted Bury were not in administration, but back in August, did Mel show proof of funds for the season- if not then why were they allowed to start the season.

 

11 hours ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

Anyone give me the cliff notes?

 

12 pts this year and 9 next?

 

@Mr Popodopolous

Is your avatar Precious McKenzie?

12 points this year, minus however many the appeal panel see fit (anything from 0 to 12), plus however many for P&S. I'll be very surprised if there is any deduction next season.

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

I'll be very surprised if there is any deduction next season.

The Derby County Football Club still needs to be in the EFL for that to happen.  I'm still not convinced that the club will be.

Looking back on the 2018 accounts the company had net assets of £122 million or thereabouts, we also know that by January 2020 the company couldn't pay HMRC.  That's a serious change on fortunes all pre-coronavirus.

Approval of the Admininistration proposals is likely to come down to the vote of HMRC.  HMRC's published position on voting in Company Voluntary Arrangements, different I know but a similar process, is here.

VAS help sheet (publishing.service.gov.uk)

The relevant text states:

Rejecting a voluntary arrangement
We are also likely to reject a voluntary arrangement where ...
     • 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

The 'Football Creditors' arrangements fall squarely within that bullet point.

If HMRC exercise their vote in this way then all debts of the Club will need to be paid to remove it from administration.  Is someone really going to pay that amount for the club?

So I still see Liquidation of the club as a significant possibility. 

We will probably have a better understanding of the position in the week commencing 15 November.

[zippycar]

23 hours ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

Is your avatar Precious McKenzie?

Very much so TCR and I think quite an iconic image of Bristol's most famous and smallest (4' 9") weightlifter.

Was fortunate enough to meet him at the Empire gym, where he would always visit when over in the UK and he even gave me some tips.

Having Googled him today I found this clip about how the photo came about and so thanks for the prompt, as I didn't know when and where it was taken.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/80762268/the-night-i-lifted-muhammad-ali-kiwi-hero-precious-mckenzie-remembers-the-greatest

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 19/10/2021 at 13:01, AnotherDerbyFan said:

The penalty decisions against us is atrocious though. 2 stonewall penalties vs Forest and another vs Preston spring to mind. The second penalty shout vs Preston looked more like a loss of balance than a foul. There have been a couple other strong shouts this season, and quite a few soft ones.. yet not a single given. You'd expect these things t even out somewhat, but we do tend to be on the wrong side of the decisions a lot more than the decisions being in our favour.

The ref vs Preston was one of the worst displays I've ever seen, missing obvious fouls against both sides. A Preston player got clipped on the edge of their box as they were making a breakaway... no foul and Derby have the ball to start another attack. Earlier in the game, Knight knocked the ball past the defender, who made no attempt to play the ball but blocked Knight off from getting on the end of it and knocked him to the floor. Again no foul given, but this time Preston have the ball to start an attack of their own.

Well I can point to some poor and unlucky decisions in 2018/19, ranging from outright incorrect to debatable. Would be interesting to see these again, and not just talking in terms of penalties but officiating in general- we have not been awarded a penalty in the League since...31st October 2020 IIRC. Now granted post October 2020 until about May 2021 we didn't create much and have been slipping back again in that regard after a promising start since the restart but we have not received many at all in recent seasons. Not a conspiracy though I do believe officiating at this level isn't great- I remember reading articles or snippets last season that suggested Championship clubs wanted emergency meetings about the standard of officiating/referees. Will try to find these.

Disallowed goals- wrong calls

1. Derby away- Weimann, December 2018 offside.
2. Nottingham Forest away- Weimann, January 2019- offside.
3. QPR home- Pisano, February 2019- a perceived foul. Having said that we got a soft penalty late on...so it evened out.
4. Aston Villa away- Weimann, April 2019- offside. At 0-0 and would have broken the game open, we at that time- perhaps still are- a counterattacking side on the road so it would surely have helped.

Other bad luck

Norwich home- Tettey, December 2018- was on a yellow card. Got his second booking and his third- maybe his fourth or at least tackles that should have led to such. One of them was at 1-1, one was 2-1 to us- no 2nd booking materialised and he was substituted in time.

Dodgy penalty

Aston Villa away- April 2019 Again at 0-0, they were awarded a poor poor penalty. See my post about the strategy and how it broke the game open, if the correct refereeing call had been made.

Miscellaneous and debatable

1. Leeds away- Brownhill- November 2018- He got a second yellow that was harsh or it was the case that one of the two was, just as we were growing into the game at 0-0 after a bad run. Now Leeds under Bielsa an excellent side and we may have lost in any case but you never know.
2. Leeds home- Casilla- March 2019- Could have been sent off although I don't recall the incident terribly well.
3. Derby home- Huddlestone and Semenyo, April 2019- Now I've no argument with the Semenyo red but vaguely recall that Huddlestone perhaps could have gone- but did not.
4. Hull away- Sure we had a goal disallowed wrongly for offside although we then got one in our favour same game so it evened out. There was some big error that quickly evened out anyway.

Last season, I recall reading on here that for your side Bielik should have been sent off v Rotherham in Rooney's first game. He was not, and then he scored the winner v Bournemouth a match or 2 later.

I recall last season we had two goals go against us when players down with head injuries or similar, maybe more than 2 but one v Bournemouth at home and one at Norwich- thought play being stopped in that scenario was not uncommon.

Putting all that aside, the amount we hit the woodwork and at key times in tight games- that alone perhaps should have seen us get into the top 6, refereeing excuses aside.

On 19/10/2021 at 13:01, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Nothing new. That been chanted at every game since the original charge.

That's fairly incredible tbh. A certain level of cognitive dissonance or belief that rules should not apply? Or am I being unfair and would it be the case at any club. I think the jury is out either way.

Amazing in some ways that they blame the EFL for a logical application of regulations that was the consequence of the mismanagement by the 2 wise men at the top of the club.

I'll concede that I've not seen the exact comments by Rooney, possibly taken out of context- dunno if there's a link to a transcript/video?

Edited October 20, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Well I believe that I have found the comments in q- interested to know what everyone thinks. Can't be bothered to write the context in the article, just the words.

Quote

"Why are we not getting big decisions?

"I'm sick of standing here every week complaining about officials not giving us anything.

"Maybe someone from the EFL or referees' association can come and speak with me about it.

"I don't know whether it's a backlash with everything that's going on at the club or it's what's happened in the past

"I thought there were two clear penalties for us. The challenge on Festy, well the defender is never goalside and eases into the back of him.

"And the handball, well I think that's a penalty".

I think his argument or hints of a conspiracy are without foundation.

Lee Johnson said here a couple of years ago that he had a number of letters from referee assessors, apology letters basically from over the years. Now there is no refereeing agenda vs our club, as there is no agenda vs Derby IMO.

Oh wait- maybe there is a conspiracy- Rick Parry, Trevor Birch, Kieran Maguire, Matt Hughes, John Percy at times for a laugh given his Forest ties, have all persuaded or bribed the referees to rule against Derby- and me of course, always me moaning away.

FWIW- there isn't, I'm just making light of ideas that there might be any grand cabal, who convene in secret plotting how to Derby down.

PPS- The EFL don't even much care for Kieran Maguire from what he himself has said before, so yes- another brick in the wall loosened.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

The sense of entitlement is nauseating- wonder if she, the MP Pauline Latham, has critiqued the mismanagement by Mel and Stephen.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38540-english-football-league-board-grave-concerns-of-two-appointments/

Complaining to an MP about Risdale and the Middlesbrough CEO being on the EFL club reps.

Erm one, they are democratically elected by their peers- secondly, did anyone complain to an MP about a certain Stephen Pearce being elected.

That's Pauline Latham the MP if anyone wants to let her know what they think of it.

That said, god knows why Risdale with his insolvency track record was voted on.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think his argument or hints of a conspiracy are without foundation.

But that doesn't stop another one going, all the more silly as www.dcfcfans.co.uk get going again.

Some poor lost soul is now complaining to not their MP about the 'appointment' of Risdale (PNE) and Bausor ('Boro) to the EFL Board under the title

• English Football League Board Grave Concerns of Two Appointments

They state that

• The second concern I have is over the appointment of Neil Bausor to the EFL board, who is currently the CEO of Middlesbrough Football Club. It is widely reported in the media of legal action against Derby County from Middlesbrough Football Club I believe there is a possible conflict of interest in this appointment.

Can someone (@AnotherDerbyFan?) point out to them that both were Elected by the Championship clubs to be their representatives on the Board.  And can someone from DCFCfans explain how having Bausor on the Board is wrong, but having their very own Pearce was not an actual conflict of interest and perfectly acceptable.

Total nonsense. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Hxj said:

But that doesn't stop another one going, all the more silly as www.dcfcfans.co.uk get going again.

Some poor lost soul is now complaining to not their MP about the 'appointment' of Risdale (PNE) and Bausor ('Boro) to the EFL Board under the title

• English Football League Board Grave Concerns of Two Appointments

They state that

• The second concern I have is over the appointment of Neil Bausor to the EFL board, who is currently the CEO of Middlesbrough Football Club. It is widely reported in the media of legal action against Derby County from Middlesbrough Football Club I believe there is a possible conflict of interest in this appointment.

Can someone (@AnotherDerbyFan?) point out to them that both were Elected by the Championship clubs to be their representatives on the Board.  And can someone from DCFCfans explain how having Bausor on the Board is wrong, but having their very own Pearce was not an actual conflict of interest and perfectly acceptable.

Total nonsense. 

Excellent. You put it better than me- shame that MP didn't show concern when it was obvious that they were being run badly, where was her concern when no accounts released for 2 years etc.

Last line sums it up- 'Total nonsense' it is. There are some sensible posters on there who know better, hopefully one of them will point out the fact that they were democratically elected...as was Mr. Pearce during the FFP investigation- this last bit shows that a conflict of interest is highly unlikely.

Would you say DCFCFans is a fair cross-section of the mindset of their fans or is that a bit skewed do you think? @AnotherDerbyFan will be able to tell us more- they did though say that Eff the EFL chants have been routine since the first charges.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Saw online- more questions from RamsTrust to the EFL, this time put from supporters to RamsTrust to put to the EFL.

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/ramstrust-efl-questions/

Some cover old ground, some don't have a good grasp of the situation and some- well don't see how the EFL can answer some of them ie that last category fully due to ongoing proceedings/negotiations.

The 4 points one is a good example of the 2nd category. Mel Morris mentioned on Radio Derby that there was an overspend equivalent to 4 points to 2018 IIRC.

That does not account for the figures to 2019 and maybe beyond but definitely to 2019. Hence the proposed 9 with a further 3 suspended and the mandatory business plan as the proposed final overall settlement. It doesn't just stop when you fail- it can get reset in some ways but it doesn't just stop or reset wholly.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Midred]

Do the EFL have an "imminent decision" tray or is that the one hidden under the "maybe next month pending a decision "

 tray?

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, Midred said:

Do the EFL have an "imminent decision" tray or is that the one hidden under the "maybe next month pending a decision "

 tray?

It should be this season but could be subject to negotiations. The force majeure appeal vs the - 12 for administration, although separate offences could be a delaying factor.

A nice thought might be that if later in the season Derby are clawing their way to say a couple of points off safety, the EFL then drop the extra 9 on them. Think of it as snakes and ladders.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 19/10/2021 at 01:22, The Constant Rabbit said:

Anyone give me the cliff notes?

 

12 pts this year and 9 next?

 

@Mr Popodopolous

What @AnotherDerbyFan said though I wonder if EFL would be looking to hold it over to 2022/23 in some circumstances.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting from Page 37 of this thread onwards- Kieran Maguire himself appears to have popped up to fight his corner a bit.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38482-derby-to-fight-12-point-deduction-according-to-nixon/page/37/#comments

Strangely, I actually find myself agreeing with small bits of a posters take on there- why were the valuations for Hillsborough and Villa Park seemingly waved through much more readily? Unanswered questions about these two IMO...

I actually even agree- albeit for different reasons- that Risdale on any kind of football oversight board is a nonsense, but the clubs did vote for him- for reasons best known to themselves? There was the Leeds fiasco, then he had a chequered history at Barnsley, Cardiff and Plymouth I believe.

CEO of Barnsley, Luton, Millwall- perhaps even ironically these days QPR, Swansea- these are all relatively well run in 2021, why one of them wasn't deemed to be a better choice than Risdale I don't know. Coventy had relatively low losses in 2019/20 but perhaps hefty debts so unsure. Preston are quite well run but Risdale himself has such a bad history.

Anyway I cannot now find the comment I had some sympathy with but it mentioned depreciation of Villa Park and Hillsborough, and the valuations being lower relative to age. I'll continue to look for it later or tomorrow. This isn't to excuse Derby but I have to wonder how they came to the conclusion they did valuation wise with the other 2 large sale prices.

Sheffield Wednesday

Sold for £60m in 2018 or 2019. That is quite a surge from an external valuation using valuation method of Depreciated Replacement Cost of £22.25m in 2014! As an aging ground, it's hard to fathom. If they had an external valuation for the 2018 or 2019 transaction, then maybe but a) Which method was used, and b) There was no report of one in any of the sets of Written reasons for their case and appeal.

I suppose they would point to the annual rent yield of £2.5-3m per year on the transaction but that's the only real saving grace- perhaps it's enough. Depreciated Replacement Cost is considered to be a useful surrogate for buildings that are tricky to value- a unique asset such as a football stadium would be one example of this.

Aston Villa

I have to wonder if the Football League under Parry would have reached the same conclusions as the Premier League ie had Aston Villa stayed down first of all- if we recall, the EFL commissioned valuation of Pride Park used a different method under the EFL's own criteria according to one report- we do not know how the Premier League approached this.

It's more complex than the Sheffield Wednesday one and here is why- or here are some of the reasons why. Unlike Derby and Sheffield Wednesday there were no past revaluations stated, no revaluation reserve etc.

1. Aston Villa from Spring 2016 to Summer 2018 had 3 different ownership groups- Lerner, Xia and the NSWE lot. To conclude in May 2019 when they got promoted.
2. In 2014/15, the Stadium was considered to be a Tangible Fixed Asset and had a book value- not a valuation, perhaps a carrying value of X...
3. ...The Stadium was and I can't remember when exactly, reclassified along with the Hotel and Training Ground into Investment Property...
4. ...I believe that the total Fair Value of said Investment Property was classed as under £30m...
5. ...In 2017/18 accounts, so that would arguably be the first under new owners at least in part there seemed to be some kind of reclassification- it was back as Tangible Fixed Assets again!
6. Sold in 2018/19 for £56.7m but what of that carrying value- ie the Profit on Disposal??
7. Did the Fair Value in Investment Property terms equate to the Book/Carrying Value in terms of Tangible Fixed Assets?

Well in 2015/16 on relegation, there was a significant Impairment of Tangible Fixed Assets- there were reports that it included Villa Park but perhaps not...that Impairment itself needs looking at IMO, because even if £56.7m was fair, was the carrying value at time of sale correct? As this was what brought about the £36m Profit on Disposal. Would be interesting to know how things play out there if Aston Villa stayed down and the EFL had 2-3 years to look at it properly while still in their jurisdiction.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Been reading some of the Derby v EFL in that thread.

That the burden of proof lies with the club is point one. It is for Derby to prove that the sole cause of administration was Covid 19.

Interested in other people's take on here.

Secondly, Paragraph 69 in the Wigan case suggested that the owner not funding- whether that be due to choice or running out of cash, I seem to recall that it is deemed/considered to be a normal business risk.

Thirdly, there are two examples in the start of the Force Majeure Sporting Sanctions bit. Derby's predicament clearly isn't due to other clubs eg defaulting on fee so Club Income it is.

The line 'During the currency of a binding agreement' has never clearly been explained but I take it to me now contracts falling through eg.

Maybe an owners business falls through and he can no longer fund the club, or maybe a significant sponsor collapses and through no fault of the club they are in administration. Interestingly the example given in the Wigan case was a TV rights deal falling through but given that these are centrally negotiate it lacks in specifics.

The EFL should also strongly stress the wider reputation of the League. If a lot of clubs tumble over into administration then it will be a terrible look at a time of rising taxes given that many will then be offering HMRC a lot less cash than they're likely due!!

Edited October 22, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Other interesting snippets.

1) Such cases are judged on Balance of Probability. Derby need to according to one legal definition I read prove their case by a ratio of 51-49. 50-50 or below and EFL win. That's just a numerical explanation of Balance of Probability.

2) All due diligence to avoid the event? Was this carried out.

3) Derby or any other club doing this will cover all costs. I approve of this because I disapprove of frivolous appeals.

4) Independent firm of accountants produce a report which is of use in the Hearing. The EFL hire/instruct the accounting firm.

Edited October 22, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Lanterne Rouge]

Surely the EFL case will be based on the question of why did Covid allegedly push Derby over the edge when it didn`t for 71 other clubs - a lot of whom on the face of it were in worse financial shape than them?

[ExiledAjax]

11 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

1) Such cases are judged on Balance of Probability. Derby need to according to one legal definition I read prove their case by a ratio of 51-49. 50-50 or below and EFL win. That's just a numerical explanation of Balance of Probability.

Balance of probabilities essentially means that they need to prove that it is 'more likely than not'. It's the easier burden of proof compared to 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Thinking of it as a 50% +1 isn't a bad way to visualise it.