Derby County

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 23/10/2021 at 08:27, ExiledAjax said:

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.

Yeah thanks, that puts it better than my version- what do you think their chances are/should be? Sounds like you have a bit of knowledge of this kinda thing.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On a different note, I see that Nixon says the administrators are looking for soft loans to pay the wages- possibly from prospective new owners.

I hope that the EFL will not crumble or go light, they need to see that the regulations are upheld to the nth degree- some of the conspiracy theories and sense of entitlement among some Derby fans are risible btw.

I saw one especially interesting post that compared the Derby model to Brentford!? Run that by us...how exactly! Brentford had huge success with selling on players that had been developed, some from lower down and others from untapped foreign markets.

Brentford are a model for many, Derby are a model for- well a model for who exactly!!

I might also add, there were claims that their model or approach did not provide them with an advantage. Newsflash- the fact that the club didn't gain a tangible advantage and perhaps shouldn't be punished is a dubious claim- for a start, had they amortised straight line then there would have been less headroom in the 1st few seasons in q, but perhaps more later on and secondly Birmingham claimed that they shouldn't be punished in 2018/19 as they gained no tangible advantage on the pitch from 12-18 months of overspending. Didn't work then, shouldn't work now! What advantage did Sheffield Wednesday and Reading gain? In the case of the 1st none, in the case of the 2nd- well yes but they didn't go up, none of these went up but the mere act of overspending or masking overspending constitutes the offence and therefore should be punishable in line with tariffs, precedent etc.

EFL v Birmingham, March 2019

Of possible relevance here certainly is Paragraph 11, issue 2.

Paragraphs 27 and 28 answer that one...Birmingham after years of austerity went a bit mad for 12-18 months and their overspend was at least a relatively 'honest' one but they were rightly punished. Derby's was anything but.

Yes the act of overspending gave Derby an advantage. As it did with Birmingham, Reading and Sheffield Wednesday- Aston Villa of course got the biggest advantage of all.

Some slight mitigating factors argued- they got a point back for general compliance and honesty from August 2018, but the first offence and the past austerity etc cut no ice in terms of mitigation. Paragraphs 34 and 35. Having said that I wonder which documents they failed to disclose.

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c79763f8e2174f4fb87200a371abf5fa/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf

Leeway or hopefully no leeway to new owners

The Owners and Directors Test Section 3- I hope that the EFL don't waive or water down any of it. Acquiring of Control, Section 3.

In particular, see the bolded bits of 3.1.1 (b) to 3.3.3,

Quote

(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

This can help to monitor FFP compliance, past, present and future if done correctly. It's also about more general financial issues of course.

Quote

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).

I particularly like 3.2.2 as it is not just Regulation 16.20 but also other such conditions "as in each case it may determine in order to monitor and/or ensure compliance with".

Quote

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:

3.3.1      The League provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule 3.1.1(a) and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Relevant Person;

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.

In other words the new owners have to accept this IMO. Given Derby's history and the fact they have just gone into administration, putting them on quite a tight leash for a while would seem only fair to me.

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

I also don't see any grounds to allow them to rush out of embargo until every last query on the Embargo Reporting Service has been sorted to the EFL's satisfaction.

Even when they are taken over, how many of the first 4 reasons will still be in play?

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/

If any are, then new ownership shouldn't change it until rectified to the EFL's satisfaction. Give no quarter tbh.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

50 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yeah thanks, that puts it better than my version- what do you think their chances are/should be? Sounds like you have a bit of knowledge of this kinda thing.

Hard to say as I've not really kept up with the detailed facts of the case.

However, I'd have thought that it will be quite hard to prove that it is 'more likely than not' that the financial impact of the restrictions imposed as a result of the covid19 pandemic was the sole reason for entering administration. 

I suspect that a judge (or tribunal panel - sorry I'm not 100% certain on whether this is in court or tribunal) will find that whilst covid19 exacerbated, or even triggered, the financial collapse of the club, it is the fact that the house of cards was so vulnerable to such an event that is the primary cause, and so covid19 was merely a contributing factor. Ask the question the other way around - had the club not been in such a state in the first place, would covid19 have caused it to go bust? If the answer is no then DCFC's case flounders.

Having said all that it really does depend on a) the precise wording of the question and b) the precise facts of the case.

As for my experience, I am a lawyer who has done a little tribunal work in the medical industry a few years ago, but I'm certainly not an expert or a specialist litigator.

Edited October 24, 2021 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

Hard to say as I've not really kept up with the detailed facts of the case.

However, I'd have thought that it will be quite hard to prove that it is 'more likely than not' that the financial impact of the restrictions imposed as a result of the covid19 pandemic was the sole reason for entering administration. 

I suspect that a judge (or tribunal panel - sorry I'm not 100% certain on whether this is in court or tribunal) will find that whilst covid19 exacerbated, or even triggered, the financial collapse of the club, it is the fact that the house of cards was so vulnerable to such an event that is the primary cause, and so covid19 was merely a contributing factor. Ask the question the other way around - had the club not been in such a state in the first place, would covid19 have caused it to go bust? If the answer is no then DCFC's case flounders.

Having said all that it really does depend on a) the precise wording of the question and b) the precise facts of the case.

As for my experience, I am a lawyer who has done a little tribunal work in the medical industry a few years ago, but I'm certainly not an expert or a specialist litigator.

Some good experience then, for this- interested in your interpretation unless you've already read them and considered them, on the wording of the EFL Force Majeure Regs- definitely would be quite hard to prove that it was the one and only reason IMO, I do agree. They're a club and fanbase with entitlement who lack class certainly.

You might have a bit of a clue on one bit in particular. I have certainly read about "All reasonable steps" or the same but worded slightly differently.

Quote

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

It's a strange wording that I've not been able to find in many other contexts at all.

Of course their fans complain that they have needed to produce 6 years worth of accounts (Nixon) arguing that it's irrelevant or similar.

12.9 to 12.12 are interesting.

Quote

12.9        The League shall serve the Club with written notice of the points deduction (the ‘Notice’). Article 50 shall apply as to the timing of receipt of such Notice.

12.10     A Club may appeal:

12.10.1  against a decision of the Board to impose a points deduction arising from an Insolvency Event of a Group Undertaking under Regulation 12.2; and/or

12.10.2  against an automatic deduction of points imposed where a Club, Premier League club or National League Club suffers an Insolvency Event under Regulations 12.1, 12.6 or 12.7 respectively,

but only on the ground that the relevant Insolvency Event(s) arose solely as a result of a Force Majeure event (‘Sporting Sanctions Appeal’).

12.11     For the purposes of this Regulation 12, a ‘Force Majeure’ event shall be an event that, having regard to all of the circumstances, was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which the Club and/or Group Undertaking (as the case may be) could not reasonably be expected to have control and its Officials had used all due diligence to avoid the happening of that event.

12.12     Any Sporting Sanctions Appeal must be in writing and be received by The League at its registered office no later than seven days after The League serves the Notice. The Sporting Sanctions Appeal must contain a statement setting out the grounds of appeal and provide copies of any documentation upon which the Club intends to rely in support of the Sporting Sanctions Appeal.

Notice was surely the date that the points were deducted- ie 22nd September 2021. Seven days to get all that in, is quite a quick turnaround- the EFL were less than clear in their statement that it was done in seven days but Nixon said it was.

If there were any procedural failings as per 12.12, then it should surely be thrown out for that alone or time-barred. Seven days is seven days is seven days.

The notice I assume to have been 22nd September 2021, this first came to light on 9th October 2021 and the EFL statement confirming it arose on 11th October 2021.

Found the bit in q- wonder if Derby can prove that they used "all due diligence" to avoid administration.

I certainly also hope that a) Derby have got everything in during the correct timeframe and b) That the correct accounting firm have been instructed.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

@Mr Popodopolous

Re the post above.

So firstly, I find the use of the term "Force Majeure" slightly odd in itself. Generally the term is used in contractual relationships. It is a fancy term for 'acts of god' that happen out of the blue, were not contemplated by the contracting parties at the time the contract was entered into, and render the contract impossible to perform. Things like wars, hurricanes, terrorist attacks, and yes, pandemics etc. The remedy is then to put each party, so far as is possible, back into the position they would have been in had the contract never been signed. In effect that means all monies get paid back, works done get undone, and the idea is everyone walks away with their hands clean. I had a delightfully intricate argument with my (ex) wedding venue last year on this precise subject.

For this concept to then be used in sporting regulations as a shield against an imposed punishment...personally I think it is a slightly lazy piece of drafting and the term should be different and more precisely defined within the narrow circumstances that it is being discussed. 

For the purposes of discussion lets imagine a contractual situation whereby you own a house and I have agreed to paint it. You have pre-paid me £100, and I will come tomorrow and paint your house. Overnight there is a flood, and sadly your house is destroyed. Understandably you want the £100 returned. Equally, I would like to be rid of the obligation to turn up and paint a non-existent house. The principle of Force Majeure allows us to agree to this. There are some more rules around something like, for example, if I have already bought the paint...but that's probably beyond the scope of this post.

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You might have a bit of a clue on one bit in particular. I have certainly read about "All reasonable steps" or the same but worded slightly differently.

I suspect that this has been used in the concept of a duty to mitigate the so-called 'act of god'. Essentially a party relying on a Force Majeure must do what they can to avoid that unforeseen event having a disastrous affect on them or the contract. Using the example of me painting your house. What if you had known that the house was at a high risk of flooding? You'd been told by a surveyor to install some flood defences...but you couldn't be bothered. Well then you've failed to mitigate against the potential event - and so I have some argument to keep some or all of the £100 that your laziness has cost me the chance of earning.

In the DCFC v EFL case I'd say that DCFC would be expected to have done something to mitigate against the potential of a global pandemic wrecking their finances. Were they running the club prudently? Did they have and maintain suitable and appropriate insurance with reputable insurers? When it became clear that a pandemic was coming what did they do? The answers to those and other questions will affect their chances of proving that they should be allowed to rely on Covid19 as a Force Majeure event.

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

12.11     For the purposes of this Regulation 12, a ‘Force Majeure’ event shall be an event that, having regard to all of the circumstances, was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which the Club and/or Group Undertaking (as the case may be) could not reasonably be expected to have control and its Officials had used all due diligence to avoid the happening of that event.

I've read this bit a few times. Honestly I think, with my limited knowledge, that the Covid19 pandemic could fairly be considered a ‘Force Majeure’ event under this definition. However, this is tempered by those final dozen or so words that you have highlighted. This is linked to the mitigation point I set out above. Did they do their due diligence as the Covid19 pandemic developed. This is hard for either side to prove really. DCFC will rely on the fact that there is no modern precedent setting out what should generally be expected of Club Officials as a pandemic develops and becomes clear. I suspect the EFL will point to the other clubs that suffered the same effects of Covid19, and yet miraculously are not in administration right now.

In the painting example this would be where you didn't even bother to check if the house was prone to flooding. You contracted with me when you'd not considered all the risks that you could have done...and now you want your £100 back. Nah, I'm keeping some of it mate.

As said earlier, I think that the word "solely" in 12.10.2 is their biggest hurdle. The mitigation point can be argued extensively. First you have to establish what they could reasonably be expected to have done, then did they do it. Is it ok that they didn't do some stuff but did do others? Should they be judged by the standards of their peers? It's a lawyers dream to have an argument that subjective and multi-limbed. So many chargeable hours!

The word "solely" though. I think that is their problem here. That word should, I imagine, be interpreted very strictly. Solely means 100%, no other contributing factor whatsoever, nothing else can have contributed even 0.01% to the administration. Could have sold a player for £5m, so enabling you to service debts for another month, but didn't? Well that's a contributing factor. Covid19 wasn't solely responsible. 

I find it highly unlikely that the independent report prepared under 12.15 will conclude that the impact of Covid19 was the sole reason for their administration. It is possible, but in my experience expert reports rarely conclude/recommend that a single factor was 100% to blame, it just isn't their style and in life it is very rarely true. I'll be amazed if the League Arbitration Panel conclude that Covid19 was solely to blame.

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If there were any procedural failings as per 12.12, then it should surely be thrown out for that alone or time-barred. Seven days is seven days is seven days.

It'll be seven days, plus whatever is known as "deemed service" under the EFL regulations. There should be a whole section on how to serve "Notices". It's a horribly tricky thing to work out, especially given the 7 days is itself dependent upon the service of a Notice. It is something that every lawyer cocks up at least once in their career. More than possible to mess it up. 

This post might be a bit out of sequence, but I hope it helps you. Sorry if I missed any questions.

Edited October 24, 2021 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

29 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

@Mr Popodopolous

Re the post above.

So firstly, I find the use of the term "Force Majeure" slightly odd in itself. Generally the term is used in contractual relationships. It is a fancy term for 'acts of god' that happen out of the blue, were not contemplated by the contracting parties at the time the contract was entered into, and render the contract impossible to perform. Things like wars, hurricanes, terrorist attacks, and yes, pandemics etc. The remedy is then to put each party, so far as is possible, back into the position they would have been in had the contract never been signed. In effect that means all monies get paid back, works done get undone, and the idea is everyone walks away with their hands clean. I had a delightfully intricate argument with my (ex) wedding venue last year on this precise subject.

For this concept to then be used in sporting regulations as a shield against an imposed punishment...personally I think it is a slightly lazy piece of drafting and the term should be different and more precisely defined within the narrow circumstances that it is being discussed. 

For the purposes of discussion lets imagine a contractual situation whereby you own a house and I have agreed to paint it. You have pre-paid me £100, and I will come tomorrow and paint your house. Overnight there is a flood, and sadly your house is destroyed. Understandably you want the £100 returned. Equally, I would like to be rid of the obligation to turn up and paint a non-existent house. The principle of Force Majeure allows us to agree to this. There are some more rules around something like, for example, if I have already bought the paint...but that's probably beyond the scope of this post.

I suspect that this has been used in the concept of a duty to mitigate the so-called 'act of god'. Essentially a party relying on a Force Majeure must do what they can to avoid that unforeseen event having a disastrous affect on them or the contract. Using the example of me painting your house. What if you had known that the house was at a high risk of flooding? You'd been told by a surveyor to install some flood defences...but you couldn't be bothered. Well then you've failed to mitigate against the potential event - and so I have some argument to keep some or all of the £100 that your laziness has cost me the chance of earning.

In the DCFC v EFL case I'd say that DCFC would be expected to have done something to mitigate against the potential of a global pandemic wrecking their finances. Were they running the club prudently? Did they have and maintain suitable and appropriate insurance with reputable insurers? When it became clear that a pandemic was coming what did they do? The answers to those and other questions will affect their chances of proving that they should be allowed to rely on Covid19 as a Force Majeure event.

I've read this bit a few times. Honestly I think, with my limited knowledge, that the Covid19 pandemic could fairly be considered a ‘Force Majeure’ event under this definition. However, this is tempered by those final dozen or so words that you have highlighted. This is linked to the mitigation point I set out above. Did they do their due diligence as the Covid19 pandemic developed. This is hard for either side to prove really. DCFC will rely on the fact that there is no modern precedent setting out what should generally be expected of Club Officials as a pandemic develops and becomes clear. I suspect the EFL will point to the other clubs that suffered the same effects of Covid19, and yet miraculously are not in administration right now.

In the painting example this would be where you didn't even bother to check if the house was prone to flooding. You contracted with me when you'd not considered all the risks that you could have done...and now you want your £100 back. Nah, I'm keeping some of it mate.

As said earlier, I think that the word "solely" in 12.10.2 is their biggest hurdle. The mitigation point can be argued extensively. First you have to establish what they could reasonably be expected to have done, then did they do it. Is it ok that they didn't do some stuff but did do others? Should they be judged by the standards of their peers? It's a lawyers dream to have an argument that subjective and multi-limbed. So many chargeable hours!

The word "solely" though. I think that is their problem here. That word should, I imagine, be interpreted very strictly. Solely means 100%, no other contributing factor whatsoever, nothing else can have contributed even 0.01% to the administration. Could have sold a player for £5m, so enabling you to service debts for another month, but didn't? Well that's a contributing factor. Covid19 wasn't solely responsible. 

I find it highly unlikely that the independent report prepared under 12.15 will conclude that the impact of Covid19 was the sole reason for their administration. It is possible, but in my experience expert reports rarely conclude/recommend that a single factor was 100% to blame, it just isn't their style and in life it is very rarely true. I'll be amazed if the League Arbitration Panel conclude that Covid19 was solely to blame.

It'll be seven days, plus whatever is known as "deemed service" under the EFL regulations. There should be a whole section on how to serve "Notices". It's a horribly tricky thing to work out, especially given the 7 days is itself dependent upon the service of a Notice. It is something that every lawyer cocks up at least once in their career. More than possible to mess it up. 

This post might be a bit out of sequence, but I hope it helps you. Sorry if I missed any questions.

Hi @ExiledAjax

Great post, thanks. Clears up and clarifies a few things, while confirming a couple of others.

I can say that in August/September 2020 not long after they took out a loan from MSD, they added Marshall and Byrne from Wigan, plus Jozwiak for a reported £4m fee. Though Bogle and Lowe sold.

They also turned down a bid for Buchanan in the summer from Nottingham Forest and reportedly Tom Lawrence although never found confirmation. The fact they're looking to accelerate loans or cash should surely count in the EFL's favour. I do know though that Rooney declared in the summer that Lawrence was not for sale at any price.

One more bit, the "currency of a binding agreement". Any ideas? My take is that could refer to agreed funding falling through tipping them over the edge and that being no fault of the club, ie a significant sponsor collapsing and that proving the decisive factor.

On a side note, the Force Majeure bits and some of the other EFL Regulations. Badly written and drafted or what!!

[ExiledAjax]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I can say that in August/September 2020 not long after they took out a loan from MSD, they added Marshall and Byrne from Wigan, plus Jozwiak for a reported £4m fee. Though Bogle and Lowe sold.

They also turned down a bid for Buchanan in the summer from Nottingham Forest and reportedly Tom Lawrence although never found confirmation. The fact they're looking to accelerate loans or cash should surely count in the EFL's favour. I do know though that Rooney declared in the summer that Lawrence was not for sale at any price

And each of these, if proven to be true, would lessen the chance that it was "more likely than not" that Covid19 was solely the cause of administration. 

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One more bit, the "currency of a binding agreement". Any ideas?

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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

Not sure. It's weird phrasing, I'm not familiar with it. I think it is saying that the Club can only use a loss of anticipated income as grounds for appeal if the loss of that income happens during the term of the contract. So it limits the type of income loss that can be used in this way.

Essentially once a contract finishes, or before it begins, any losses of anticipated income that result therefrom cannot be used to claim that the Club cannot pay its debts.

So they can't claim that "we're only insolvent because we've not been paid under that contract that ended last year". Alternatively yes your example of future earnings not being realised because a contract falls through, yes I think that works.

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

And each of these, if proven to be true, would lessen the chance that it was "more likely than not" that Covid19 was solely the cause of administration. 

Not sure. It's weird phrasing, I'm not familiar with it. I think it is saying that the Club can only use a loss of anticipated income as grounds for appeal if the loss of that income happens during the term of the contract. So it limits the type of income loss that can be used in this way.

Essentially once a contract finishes, or before it begins, any losses of anticipated income that result therefrom cannot be used to claim that the Club cannot pay its debts.

So they can't claim that "we're only insolvent because we've not been paid under that contract that ended last year". Alternatively yes your example of future earnings not being realised because a contract falls through, yes I think that works.

Thanks once again.

Definitely right about weird phrasing, I did a Google search or two with speech marks, and the only place it comes up really was relates to the EFL and something else random/obscure.

Anything that weakens their case is positive IMO.

Because on a side note, away from legal wording etc aren't they arrogant! As a club, fanbase etc.

Variously on Twitter you will see claims that the EFL are biased against them, appearing in terms of refereeing calls.

Claims that there is a vendetta vs them, other claims that it's a dispute between two egos (Morris and Parry) endangering a founder club a fact I couldn't care less about, status of club isn't an issue is it.

I could go on but some of their stuff makes me want to...well it's worthy of the world's smallest violin. 

Maybe I'm harsh but they do very little to engender goodwill for themselves as a fanbase and club in this regard.

[CyderInACan]

29 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks once again.

Definitely right about weird phrasing, I did a Google search or two with speech marks, and the only place it comes up really was relates to the EFL and something else random/obscure.

Anything that weakens their case is positive IMO.

Because on a side note, away from legal wording etc aren't they arrogant! As a club, fanbase etc.

Variously on Twitter you will see claims that the EFL are biased against them, appearing in terms of refereeing calls.

Claims that there is a vendetta vs them, other claims that it's a dispute between two egos (Morris and Parry) endangering a founder club a fact I couldn't care less about, status of club isn't an issue is it.

I could go on but some of their stuff makes me want to...well it's worthy of the world's smallest violin. 

Maybe I'm harsh but they do very little to engender goodwill for themselves as a fanbase and club in this regard.

I always keep an eye on this fascinating thread even though some of the legal back and forths are possibly somewhat fanciful on both sides. The amount of obfuscation and lack of good will (as well as the absolute pisstake of the last few years ) from Derby obviously being a provocative factor. 

Bottom line for me. And everyone I would suggest. If Derby win this then football is f u k c e d. What’s the point any more. It’s bad enough with the absolute nonsense of parachute payments. But If you can sell your ground etc etc etc to yourself then we may as well just not f u k c ing bother. 

[ExiledAjax]

35 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks once again.

Definitely right about weird phrasing, I did a Google search or two with speech marks, and the only place it comes up really was relates to the EFL and something else random/obscure.

Anything that weakens their case is positive IMO.

Because on a side note, away from legal wording etc aren't they arrogant! As a club, fanbase etc.

Variously on Twitter you will see claims that the EFL are biased against them, appearing in terms of refereeing calls.

Claims that there is a vendetta vs them, other claims that it's a dispute between two egos (Morris and Parry) endangering a founder club a fact I couldn't care less about, status of club isn't an issue is it.

I could go on but some of their stuff makes me want to...well it's worthy of the world's smallest violin. 

Maybe I'm harsh but they do very little to engender goodwill for themselves as a fanbase and club in this regard.

Honestly I'm interested in it more from the legal side.

I've not had much interaction with Derby fans, and certainly don't engage them on Twitter.

Honestly, the only Derby fan I've ever met was on a mates stag do. The bloke mistook a bidet for a toilet and laid out a log that he then couldn't get rid of.

Take from that what you will.

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Honestly I'm interested in it more from the legal side.

I've not had much interaction with Derby fans, and certainly don't engage them on Twitter.

Honestly, the only Derby fan I've ever met was on a mates stag do. The bloke mistook a bidet for a toilet and laid out a log that he then couldn't get rid of.

Take from that what you will.

Looks like the EFL struggling to flush Derby down the toilet too.

Reminds me of Extras when Steven Merchant needed a whisk to break up a stubborn turd!

[1960maaan]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

needed a whisk to break up a stubborn turd!

Right there is an analogy for the EFL Vs Derby conundrum 

[fairweather]

42 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Honestly I'm interested in it more from the legal side.

I've not had much interaction with Derby fans, and certainly don't engage them on Twitter.

Honestly, the only Derby fan I've ever met was on a mates stag do. The bloke mistook a bidet for a toilet and laid out a log that he then couldn't get rid of.

Take from that what you will.

I want to go on stag do’s where we have bidets in our on-suites. Was it Nice or St Tropez!!!

[ExiledAjax]

8 hours ago, fairweather said:

I want to go on stag do’s where we have bidets in our on-suites. Was it Nice or St Tropez!!!

No, just Marbella.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Would be nice if there were a few chants aimed at Derby and their situation when we play them. Would be nice if fans of clubs in general did tbh.

One of our own is a generic chant with a generic base but I'll start.. 

Quote

"One of your own

He's of your own

The cheating b*****d

Mel's one of your own!"

All good fun...but with some accuracy as well! 

Or to present tense, line 3 could be "You're cheating b******s". It fits line by line.

Plus see, the old "We all hate Leeds" song. Modified. I believe that this was a song in the past.

Quote

"We all hate Rams and Rams and Rams and Rams and Rams and Rams.

"We all hate Rams and Rams and Rams and Rams and Rams and Rams.

We all hate cheating Rams!"

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

19 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Would be nice if there were a few chants aimed at Derby and their situation when we play them. Would be nice if fans of clubs in general did tbh.

One of our own is a generic chant with a generic base but I'll start.. 

"One of your own

He's of your own

The cheating b*****d

Mel's one of your own!"

All good fun...but with some accuracy as well! 

Or to present tense, line 3 could be "You're cheating b******s". It fits line by line.

"Force majeure, majuere;

Whatever will be, will be;

Accept your penalty; 

Force majeure, majuere."

To the tune of que sera, sera.

[BTRFTG]

21 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

So firstly, I find the use of the term "Force Majeure" slightly odd in itself. Generally the term is used in contractual relationships. It is a fancy term for 'acts of god' that happen out of the blue

In legal terms 'Force Majeure' and 'Acts Of God' are wholly distinct, they are NOT one and the same.

An 'Act of God' MUST BE a natural event (i.e. Earthquake, Volcanic Eruption, Coastal Flooding et al.) Force Majeure covers events over which man is either the cause or over which he has a significant degree of influence (i.e. Coup, Riot, Strike, War...)

Neither is an Epidemic or Pandemic an 'Act of God' as, as has demonstrated by mankind across the globe, there's quite a lot one can do to mitigate it's impacts. Not what God may do,  what mankind can do. In the case of Covid it's debatable whether the pandemic even falls into the 'Force Majeure' category for Championship clubs. Did the virus prevent them from carrying out their business? Well, no it didn't. Things were constrained but trade continued. Games played, players bought and sold, media contracts enforced. Temporary interruption to cashflow is something any company should have on its risk register, it's why successful companies hold reserves. Derby, should they claim they didn't because God denied them that opportunity, now that would be pushing credibility to its limits.

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, BTRFTG said:

In legal terms 'Force Majeure' and 'Acts Of God' are wholly distinct, they are NOT one and the same.

An 'Act of God' MUST BE a natural event (i.e. Earthquake, Volcanic Eruption, Coastal Flooding et al.) Force Majeure covers events over which man is either the cause or over which he has a significant degree of influence (i.e. Coup, Riot, Strike, War...)

Neither is an Epidemic or Pandemic an 'Act of God' as, as has demonstrated by mankind across the globe, there's quite a lot one can do to mitigate it's impacts. Not what God may do,  what mankind can do. In the case of Covid it's debatable whether the pandemic even falls into the 'Force Majeure' category for Championship clubs. Did the virus prevent them from carrying out their business? Well, no it didn't. Things were constrained but trade continued. Games played, players bought and sold, media contracts enforced. Temporary interruption to cashflow is something any company should have on its risk register, it's why successful companies hold reserves. Derby, should they claim they didn't because God denied them that opportunity, now that would be pushing credibility to its limits.

Agreed on the general legal distinction. I was keeping it simple for the purposes of the forum.

I think the EFL have tried to create their own definition of "Force Majeure" for the purposes of their regs. See reg 12.11 that @Mr Popodopolous quoted above. That's what is weird in the drafting. Under that 'new' definition I think Covid19 could be a "Force Majeure" event.

[Mr Popodopolous]

24 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

"Force majeure, majuere;

Whatever will be, will be;

Accept your penalty; 

Force majeure, majuere."

To the tune of que sera, sera.

Oh I like that!

Good to wind em up. God knows Morris and his antics have wound up everyone else in recent times.

[BTRFTG]

10 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Agreed on the general legal distinction. I was keeping it simple for the purposes of the forum.

I think the EFL have tried to create their own definition of "Force Majeure" for the purposes of their regs. See reg 12.11 that @Mr Popodopolous quoted above. That's what is weird in the drafting. Under that 'new' definition I think Covid19 could be a "Force Majeure" event.

I'd ask:

Was it within Derby's control not to spend far in excess of their income over a period lasting many years?

Is it a normal business risk that if  liabilities vastly exceed income and does do for a prolonged period there's a realistic chance of that business having to fold?

Had the material event (Covid) not occured would Derby most likely have discovered their 'shit or bust' strategy of reaching The Premier would fail yet again?

Is it unrealistic to claim that a future event, one claimed 'beyond their control' (sic), is just cause for Derby not to have published their accounts in the preceding three accounting periods?

I think most sane folks would conclude the answers to the above are 'Yes' in all circumstance. If so, Force Majeure it isn't.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Back on the topic briefly- any amusing songs will be good though.

I don't quite understand why the EFL need to settle as such- it is Derby who need to fulfil many obligations and the new owners have to agree with this.

I would be enforcing everything against them, for as long as possible to the furthest extent that the rules allow.

Quote

I'm less convinced the EFL are worried it would set a precedent of teams getting away without a  points deduction than I am that they simply can't be bothered to go through with the cost and effort of further appeals processes by other clubs, even futile ones.

This line makes little sense because the club covers the costs irrespective. The time and effort wrangling bit is a fair point, but the costs are correctly covered by the club who takes the action regardless of outcome. As it should be- the risk should lie with clubs when they make frivolous appeals.

I also don't see how this bit works, well I can on one level but the EFL have a whole array of conditions they can impose, the club have a list of conditions they need to satisfy...new owners shouldn't change the 2nd point.

Quote

I’d have thought  the EFL’s concern will lead them to settle with us to stop other clubs electing for admin

Derby surely are in no position to be setting terms of settlement? Section 3 of the Owners and Directors Test makes abundantly clear how it should proceed in terms of who should agree to what etc.

The EFL can set conditions as they see fit for new owners in order to ensure and monitor compliance with various conditions, okay that's a shortened version but it's quite clear.

Does this strike as special pleading? What he says goes against Paragraph 69 of the Wigan case.

Quote

I get the reasons for the 12 point penalty - it makes sense.  Under normal circumstances.  For us though, the core reason for appeal is COVID and the loss of 10s millions in potential income without which we'd likely not be in administration.  Not saying we'd be flush, but Mel certainly wouldn't have been in a position where he was required to provide all that additional funding.   Strikes me Maguire likes to point things out to the EFL just in case they haven't thought of it, or to give them another angle.  

With gates now open, crowds back and the revenue associated with that, I don't see why our case would set a precedent and open any flood gates.  If a club isn't yet in administration why should they suddenly file for it as a result of our appeal? If we were still in a lockdown, with zero additional funds for clubs, then different story. But we're not. 

Season tickets were announced late for Derby, wonder if that'll either be a factor for them or the EFL.

Paragraph 10, the Wigan case.

Paragraph 68 and 69- gives the idea of owners turning off the tap or running out of cash being a get out of jail card fairly short shrift.

Binding agreement bit...Nixon said Mel Morris was refusing to give adequate funding guarantees to the EFL back in July-August time. They were asking for proof of funds and he perhaps was not providing- had he done so they wouldn't be in administration this season would they!

TV revenue is a bit of an odd one, would have thought it would be something more specific to a club- TV revenue would likely tip multiple clubs into administration. Unless that's the point?

It is deemed a normal business risk though, owner funding ending for whatever reason- if we get the same panel I don't see how they can rule anything else.

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/1920-judgements/wigan-athletic-v-efl.pdf

Edited October 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[BTRFTG]

The EFL will move heaven and earth to ensure one of their more prestigious members are not overly inconvenienced. That's they way they operate irrespective of how badly they've behaved.

Contrast Macclesfield who were a conniving pain in the backside but had few friends in football's high places.

Edited October 25, 2021 by BTRFTG

[Mr Popodopolous]

51 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The EFL will move heaven and earth to ensure one of their more prestigious members are not overly inconvenienced. That's they way they operate irrespective of how badly they've behaved.

Contrast Macclesfield who were a conniving pain in the backside but had few friends in football's high places.

You say that but is it possible that they've antagonised the EFL once too often?

Hopefully dirty Derby will get the harshest punishments/treatment within the regulations possible.

Their Supporters Trust- normally those who are rightly feted in football- seem somewhat arrogant too.

Have a look at a few of the nonsense questions and points they raised to the EFL.

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

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/efl-response-to-ramstrust/

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/ramstrust-meeting-with-the-efl/

The arrogance and ignorance, the special pleading- it really shines through.

It's especially ironic given that in 2011, the same organisation as part of fans representations to Parliament were calling for tighter regulations- possibly even the same guy as well, one Jim Wheeler! These are significantly tighter regulations but still they are not happy.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[The Original OTIB]

4 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The EFL will move heaven and earth to ensure one of their more prestigious members are not overly inconvenienced. That's they way they operate irrespective of how badly they've behaved.

Contrast Macclesfield who were a conniving pain in the backside but had few friends in football's high places.

Macc Lads are lovely, just ask Congleton:

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Edit.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

28 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

I'd ask:

Was it within Derby's control not to spend far in excess of their income over a period lasting many years? Yes

Is it a normal business risk that if  liabilities vastly exceed income and does do for a prolonged period there's a realistic chance of that business having to fold? Yes

Had the material event (Covid) not occured would Derby most likely have discovered their 'shit or bust' strategy of reaching The Premier would fail yet again? Unknown - we can presume yes, but there is a chance that it would not have failed.

Is it unrealistic to claim that a future event, one claimed 'beyond their control' (sic), is just cause for Derby not to have published their accounts in the preceding three accounting periods? Probably, although I am not an expert in the rules surrounding the publication of accounts.

I think most sane folks would conclude the answers to the above are 'Yes' in all circumstance. If so, Force Majeure it isn't.

I agree with your sentiments, and I am not arguing that Derby should get away with this. Far from it. I think they'd fail their appeal anyway - but they'd fail, using the same questions as you set out above, on the turning of the word "sole" in the regulations, rather than on whether or not the Covid19 pandemic was a FM event or not.

However, we aren't dealing with the common legal definition of FM that you helped to clarify. We are dealing with the EFL's own definition that they have set out in their private regulations, and which are being considered by their private arbitration panel. That definition is wider than the common one and states:

For the purposes of this Regulation 12, a ‘Force Majeure’ event shall be an event that, having regard to all of the circumstances, was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which the Club and/or Group Undertaking (as the case may be) could not reasonably be expected to have control and its Officials had used all due diligence to avoid the happening of that event.

In this definition the concept of FM is expanded to cover anything that happens and is outside of the Club's control. That analysis should be limited to the event itself, and should not have regard to its effects. The question is "Was the Covid19 pandemic caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which DCFC couldn't reasonably be expected to have had control?". You may argue that a pandemic's effects are a normal business risk, but the pandemic itself is not. @Mr Popodopolous do you know what they are actually alleging is the Force Majeure item? Is it the pandemic as an event or is it the fact they ran out of cash because of it?

There's no doubt that it is arguable either way, and as I said in my first post, I wish they'd not used the phrase 'Force Majeure' in the EFL regulations as it confuses matters somewhat. 

As I say, if I am wrong and the panel take your reading of it, well then the appeal fails. If I am right then I think it fails again as even if the pandemic is considered to be an FM event, it won't be seen to be the sole reason for administration.

[chinapig]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/oct/25/chris-kirchner-announces-interest-buying-derby

[054123]

I have no issue with the Carolina Panthers buying Derby, I’m just amazed at the reaction of some Derby fans. It’s like they accept no responsibility talks in the club for the last few years and this is just a vendetta by the league.

My heart bleeds for them.

[redsquirrel]

all that video needed was the little blue cars and a scoreboard,ah,the memories

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, 054123 said:

I have no issue with the Carolina Panthers buying Derby, I’m just amazed at the reaction of some Derby fans. It’s like they accept no responsibility talks in the club for the last few years and this is just a vendetta by the league.

My heart bleeds for them.

It's worse than that.

A substantial minority of Derby fans actively celebrated how they supposedly had one over the EFL in various ways.

People say think of the fans and in a lot of cases that's true.

In this instance? Certainly not.

As you say, the lack of acceptance, ownership from a fair few is incredible. Sure you've read the RamsTrust links I've posted.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

EFL need to keep the pressure on with their stipulations until such time as every last one is satisfied to the required standard. They are clear, the Owners and Directors Test Section 3.

[Davefevs]

53 minutes ago, chinapig said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/oct/25/chris-kirchner-announces-interest-buying-derby

I was gonna post earlier….”where are the new owner offers then”.  Looks like we have the first show of interest.  Will watch how it evolves.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Looks like Wycombe maybe pressing ahead with a claim!

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-wycombe-bill-kirchner-takeover-6112331

£6m! I applaud them, the stuff about £10m, £15m, £20m that was wrong- demonstrably incorrect. The £6m in lost TV/solidarity revenue or perhaps they may need to revise it down further- the gap between the two divisions as opposed to the gross amount- that is more realistic and should provide a better basis.

If as reported, Derby were using procedural defences to stall and push any possible order of restatement/punishment into 2021/22 then all good wishes to Wycombe tbh! Although it's possible that they have better grounds of a claim vs the EFL.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

34 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Looks like Wycombe maybe pressing ahead with a claim!

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-wycombe-bill-kirchner-takeover-6112331

£6m! I applaud them, the stuff about £10m, £15m, £20m that was wrong- demonstrably incorrect. The £6m in lost TV/solidarity revenue or perhaps they may need to revise it down further- the gap between the two divisions as opposed to the gross amount- that is more realistic and should provide a better basis.

If as reported, Derby were using procedural defences to stall and push any possible order of restatement/punishment into 2021/22 then all good wishes to Wycombe tbh! Although it's possible that they have better grounds of a claim vs the EFL.

£50m….does that mean the new owner taking on the debts….or does it mean a cut price stadium sell???

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

£50m….does that mean the new owner taking on the debts….or does it mean a cut price stadium sell???

Hard to say- Nixon is the source of the £50m, maybe taking on debts and if they get the stadium it'll be massively under £81m surely unless it'll be two separate transactions- ie £50m and then close to £81m for the ground.

Derby fans have seemed bullish in that regard, saying that the stadium sale back to the club via the new owner is nothing to do with the EFL- but I'm really not so sure. @Hxj mentioned a while ago about consolidation or deconsolidation- maybe the EFL should go down that road, given that one of the conditions that approved the sale and leaseback was IIRC linked to the ground not being a material part of operations.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Some of them, still bang on about potential loopholes.

One poster suggests that the prospective new owner could sponsor the ground for £10m a year via his company?? Nothing like at our level for Fair Value purposes.

They also go on to add, that Mel writing off debt could offer potential FFP expenditure headroom.

Not a chance the EFL accept the 2nd, and the 1st falls foul under the Fair Value regulations.The fact that Section 3 of the owners and directors test gives the EFL a) Regulation 16.20 and b) Perhaps to some extent carte blanche when it comes to ensuring compliance and monitoring compliance with varied regulations appears never to be mentioned on their site. Prospective owners have to agree to this Test, to pass it.

[downendcity]

This is a real acid test for and of the EFL.

Outside of Derby’s fan base I think there is general acceptance that with the advent of the new ffp rules Derby/Morris made a conscious decision to ignore the rules, choosing instead to embark on a campaign to secure promotion by continued spending. It appears they did so knowing the financial position ( both in general terms, but particularly with regard to ffp limits) it would place the club, but were banking on promotion as the means of “balancing the books” before the day of reckoning arrived. 

Unfortunately, the day of reckoning arrived before promotion and while Derby fans are almost brazen about having had one over on the EFL, let’s be honest, the sale of Pride Park was a desperate last ditch measure to save the club from ffp embarrassment and depriving them of the chance of promotion. The irony is, of course, that had they bitten the bullet back then and taken a likely points deduction, while it would have meant them missing out on promotion ( which they did anyway) the consequences would have been less severe than they are now looking. In particular, I wonder whether they would have avoided the EFL looking more closely at their accounting techniques, especially around amortisation?

Reading followed a similar course, and while “punished” by the EFL for their transgressions, appear to be making a mockery of the so called embargo, by being able to recruit loanees who are far better ( and affordable) than anything we, and most championship clubs,  could afford to bring in.

That being the case, if  Derby are seen to have escaped full punishment,  by having points deductions reduced, then not only would it put the EFL’s credibility in the same place as requires a whisk to get out of the pan, but it would throw the financial rules into disarray, as I could understand if other clubs take the view “what’s  the point in us complying of other clubs are getting away with it”.

 

 

 

[Hxj]

Not at all convinced that Kirchner will end up with DCFC, something's not right.

There is nothing to indicate that he has real free net worth anywhere near what is required to fund a Championship football club.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Very good post @downendcity

I am hoping that the sheer brazen nature of Derby and their antics means that no quarter is given. More than that though, it's a real acid test as you say for the credibility of the EFL.

IF the deduction comes to Reading at a suitable time it could easily plunge them into a relegation scrap. Mooted as between 6-9 pts and a business plan, with a risk of further deductions next season according to one bit I saw online.

Rahman and Drinkwater, blame Chelsea they must have subsidised it massively. Talking 90% at least which is very odd.

As for Derby, an acid test is what it is. They arguably bottled it in 2018 with Aston Villa, or messed it up or similar whatever interpretation..the change of owners should not have provided a final shot at promotion. Articles from the time said that they were under pressure to cut their wage bill from £45m...that was already significantly down on the prior season.

They ended up getting promoted with a basic wage bill before bonuses of £78m!! By wages I mean total group wages including everyone, NI etc but excluding bonuses. Bonuses saw them shell out £94m!!

The EFL had a business plan, the club themselves were reportedly under Xia looking to slash it to £30m, new owners plus a loophole in and it seems like it is suspended for a year!?

A combination of HS2 and Villa Park revaluation revenue, the latter a sale and leaseback but given the rolling nature of the FFP regs they could easily have restricted them more under the new owners given regard for the following season and maybe 2 seasons. The EFL however did not.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

That being the case, if  Derby are seen to have escaped full punishment,  by having points deductions reduced, then not only would it put the EFL’s credibility in the same place as requires a whisk to get out of the pan, but it would throw the financial rules into disarray, as I could understand if other clubs take the view “what’s  the point in us complying of other clubs are getting away with it”.

Exactly. I have posted before that if the EFL weakens (and who would bet against it?) it could be the effective end of P&S.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Why should the EFL weaken exactly? They have a fair few points in their favour.

@Davefevs We discussed yesterday. I've looked at Nixon's article again and it seems £50m, that would include the ground.

Two massive problems with this if I'm the EFL:

1) The £81m, successfully defended at a Tribunal as well as defended in the Gellaw Newco 202 accounts and by Mel on Talksport.

2) What I've said before, one of the conditions for approval was that it could/would not be a material part of operations. Can you just reverse that on a whim?? Given that the burden of compliance is with a club and not an owner whoever that may be, I don't see how.

As for the prospective new owner, he would like what he calls a sensible discussion on the points penalties. Plus the chance to sign players in January, to give Derby a chance to stay up.

There aren't really that many discussion points tbh. The EFL should make this crystal clear:

1) The terms on offer are the terms on offer.

2) The alternative is continued haggling and eventually a Disciplinary Commission for each and every 3 year period for which questions remain. In each one we will push for the maximum possible penalty.

3) This is no quick process. After all, justice rushed is justice crushed.

4) The current conditions in as far as possible will remain in play while this situation is unresolved.

5) There is also the matter of the Stadium valuation and material part of operations condition in respect of the 2018 transaction. We have a severe problem with this from an FFP perspective, if the ground goes back to the club well under the valuation. Maybe it is new evidence and we will reinvestigate if required.

6) There are multiple conditions still on the Embargo Reporting service still to be resolved. Nothing changes until such time as they are.

The EFL need to lay out a real tough line and stick with it...clubs are watching closely I expect.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

So you sell the ground to get around FFP, but wanna include it again for zilch.

Eff off Derby County!

Edited October 26, 2021 by Davefevs

[Clevedon Red]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

So you sell the ground to get around FFP, but wanna include it again for zilch.

Eff off Derby County!

Language David.

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, Clevedon Red said:

Language David.

Sorry - language Timothy!

[Desso]

17 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Sorry - language Timothy!

Glad you don't sit near us.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

So you sell the ground to get around FFP, but wanna include it again for zilch.

Eff off Derby County!

Derby fans a few on Kieran Maguire's feed the other week seemed to suggest it had nothing to do with the EFL etc.

Kieran remained silent on it.

@Hxj You mentioned consolidation a while ago or otherwise, could the EFL strongly suggest that to avoid further FFP complications that it remains deconsolidated from the group, even if the new owner himself purchases it below the successfully defended Fair Value? Reconsolidating it 3-4 years into a 20 year lease makes a total mockery...let alone at a lower valuation. Example of deconsolidation would be Gellaw Newco 202 owned by the new owners but still separate from whoever the holding company for the club is. With all of the implications that entails.

I don't see how it isn't in their gift to make it very complicated for Derby and their new owner given the regulations if they go down this path. Is it at all possible that the EFL could refuse the golden share? Bit of a long shot I know.

It's also been suggested that as in administration they don't need to submit accounts- that's what Quantama said. How that fits with the 3 accounts related embargo reasons on the EFL's site is hard to square.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Guessing that the new owner would have to submit accounts to Companies House?  Can’t leave a year unfiled can you?  Or do Administrators have to do it?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Account for 2019 and 2020?

As I understand  if the company is liquidated then nor sure how it works to. Perhaps internal submissions but if liquidated then the Golden Share has to be transferred to the Newco.

I'd suggest that the EFL should use this as a huge bargaining chip in so far as the Regulations allow. Same company and same regs apply surely.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

So you sell the ground to get around FFP, but wanna include it again for zilch.

Eff off Derby County!

Shouldn’t that be Effp off Derby County?

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@Hxj You mentioned consolidation a while ago or otherwise, could the EFL strongly suggest that to avoid further FFP complications that it remains deconsolidated from the group, even if the new owner himself purchases it below the successfully defended Fair Value?

The EFL can impose a business plan.  There is no reason to suppose that that business plan cannot insist that the ground is kept outside what qualifies as the group for FFP purposes, with arm's length transactions between the stadium and the EFL group.

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Is it at all possible that the EFL could refuse the golden share?

Not if the same company continues to trade as the 'Football Company' and meets the ongoing obligations.  If the company enters into liquidation then it will loose the share.

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Guessing that the new owner would have to submit accounts to Companies House?  Can’t leave a year unfiled can you?  Or do Administrators have to do it?

There is a gap between the rules for companies in Administration and the EFL Regulations.  Where a company enters Administration there is no obligation to submit outstanding accounts, but a statement of the financial position at the date of Administration has to be submitted to Companies House.  However the FFP rules require submission of audited accounts otherwise the club will remain in Embargo.  That is one of the many circles that will need to be squared.

Once the company comes out of Administration accounts for subsequent periods will need to be submitted.

 

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The EFL can impose a business plan.  There is no reason to suppose that that business plan cannot insist that the ground is kept outside what qualifies as the group for FFP purposes, with arm's length transactions between the stadium and the EFL group.

Not if the same company continues to trade as the 'Football Company' and meets the ongoing obligations.  If the company enters into liquidation then it will loose the share.

There is a gap between the rules for companies in Administration and the EFL Regulations.  Where a company enters Administration there is no obligation to submit outstanding accounts, but a statement of the financial position at the date of Administration has to be submitted to Companies House.  However the FFP rules require submission of audited accounts otherwise the club will remain in Embargo.  That is one of the many circles that will need to be squared.

Once the company comes out of Administration accounts for subsequent periods will need to be submitted.

 

So, EFL could impose that Derby remain in embargo because of lack of audited accounts?  How can the EFL be expected to check the FFP submissions for previous years without something to compare to?

[chinapig]

30 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

So, EFL could impose that Derby remain in embargo because of lack of audited accounts?  How can the EFL be expected to check the FFP submissions for previous years without something to compare to?

My memory may be failing me but I thought the EFL said it had received the revised accounts from Derby by the 18th August deadline. Which would mean its accountants have had over 2 months so far to examine them.

[Davefevs]

30 minutes ago, chinapig said:

My memory may be failing me but I thought the EFL said it had received the revised accounts from Derby by the 18th August deadline. Which would mean its accountants have had over 2 months so far to examine them.

I thought they’d issued restated FFP reports / accounts for years back, but aren’t they still yet to publish all accounts at Companies House?  I don’t know the company names to check.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Davefevs

[Mr Popodopolous]

23 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I thought they’d issued restated FFP reports / accounts for years back, but aren’t they still yet to publish all accounts at Companies House?  I don’t know the company names to check.

As far as I remember, to 2018- although there are rumours that they were not restated in the correct format but who knows.

None for 2019 or 2020 to CH, I question whether the EFL have had these either- certainly the signed off and audited ones.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

The EFL can impose a business plan.  There is no reason to suppose that that business plan cannot insist that the ground is kept outside what qualifies as the group for FFP purposes, with arm's length transactions between the stadium and the EFL group.

Not if the same company continues to trade as the 'Football Company' and meets the ongoing obligations.  If the company enters into liquidation then it will loose the share.

There is a gap between the rules for companies in Administration and the EFL Regulations.  Where a company enters Administration there is no obligation to submit outstanding accounts, but a statement of the financial position at the date of Administration has to be submitted to Companies House.  However the FFP rules require submission of audited accounts otherwise the club will remain in Embargo.  That is one of the many circles that will need to be squared.

Once the company comes out of Administration accounts for subsequent periods will need to be submitted.

 

Thanks, that clears that up. Golden share only if insolvent- do they have to publish a statement of the financial position if they get taken over before this is due? Ha a statement of position, surely that should show the basics of accounts for 2019, 2020 and 2021- Portsmouth's did.

The Business Plan will be interesting- there has been not much discussion by their fans on this subject. As I mentioned before, the owner or prospective owner said he would like to have what he called a sensible discussion with the EFL on points penalty and to sign players in Jan. Wanting a chance to stay up probably.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

When looking for stuff on Wycombe suing them, or putting in a claim whatever I found the following post on a Brighton forum.

Spot on- nails it!

Quote

Hard to feel sorry for Derby fans. I occasionally glanced at their forum and know one in real life, and what was amazing how was boastful they were about their cheating. How Mel Morris held the EFL like a puppet on a string. How he knew every loophole and was some kind of superstar accounting genius, fiddling the books just the right side of legally.

They were proud of this behaviour and developed a victim complex when the EFL had enough of their blatant arrogance.

The whole plan was to break the rules so much and so flagrantly, by the time the EFL gathered evidence they'd already be basking in PL riches.

Normally, especially considering our history, I'd feel bad for the fans who have little if any say in how crooks run their beloved clubs. (See Wigan, Chester, Darlington et al). But this is different.

A couple of seasons down in League One will hopefully give them a little humility, Guendouzi style, and they can take responsibility for their part in endorsing the shit show they have helped to create up there.

The only ones I feel bad for in this are the SME creditors, who will get pennies on the pound under extremely harsh Covid conditions, and may even lose their businesses over unpaid debts. Meanwhile journeymen footballers on £10k's per week are "Super Creditors" and will likely get paid the lot.

Shocking state of affairs and all, completely, entirely their fault.

Interesting to know if anyone disagrees vastly.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting to know if anyone disagrees vastly.

No

[Mr Popodopolous]

Agreed. I liked the bit in the post about learning a bit of humility in League One. I was hoping Mel Morris would have presided over a relegation and had to do so. He clearly could not.

Chansiri did and tbh after a rocky start to the summer, he has for now stuck with them.

Wycombe and their claim. @ExiledAjax and @Hxj

Any chance of success here? Not entirely sure who would be adjudicator or is it literally asking the administrators to add them to the creditors list- surely someone would need to uphold it in order from them ie to be deemed as football creditors for example.

Interesting post on their forum though, basically suggesting that they avoided producing accounts in order to avoid further punishment. Would help Wycombe's case surely that if true of course.

[Hxj]

44 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Wycombe and their claim. @ExiledAjax and @Hxj

An interesting PR stunt.  Always keep Derby's failings and your suffering on the front page.

[Mr Popodopolous]

38 minutes ago, Hxj said:

An interesting PR stunt.  Always keep Derby's failings and your suffering on the front page.

No real chance then. Didn't really think so although it would good if somehow classed as a football creditor if only to wind up some of the idiots on their forum.

Talking of their forum, I nearly dropped my coffee in shock when a poster described some Wycombe fans as deluded. A psychoanalyst could have a field day with some of their takes. 

If it helps keep up pressure on the EFL to act correctly that could be useful. 

Back ON the field of play, assuming no nasty surprises on the deduction front, could theoretically be relegated the day we play them.

22nd April, Pride Park 3pm. Quite late in the season that. Bit of taunting from the away end feels in order certainly.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Wycombe and their claim.

Honestly I've not kept up with it. I'd have thought it's a very long shot. Seems like it's not actually a claim in court yet either. Found this quote from Wycombe Wanderers' owner Rob Couhig here:

“I don’t know if we call it legal action. But a claim has been presented and is with all of the others.

“I don’t know if it’s secured or unsecured. It’s in the big jumble of things Derby have to deal with.”

Seems like it's just a claim against the administrators for now. That won't get them anything at all, but if they are thinking to go to court eventually then then shows some early intention. If they're saying they're some sort of creditor they'll get laughed out of the office I'd expect.

I'd also query whether they should really be sueing Derby at all. Yes Derby cheated, but you could argue that the EFL should have acted sooner and imposed penalties last season. That would mean that really they should be after the EFL or whoever dilly dallied last season.

Ultimately I suspect Wycombe will get nowhere.

[Hxj]

13 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

not actually a claim in court

My understanding is that Wycombe sent the Administrators an invoice.

[ExiledAjax]

43 minutes ago, Hxj said:

My understanding is that Wycombe sent the Administrators an invoice.

That is what it sounds like isn't. Perhaps with a nice letter asking if they wouldn't mind awfully adding them onto the preferred creditor list for £6m?

I suspect it's gone straight into the special filing cabinet for things from head office. 

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

I suspect it's gone straight into the special filing cabinet for things from head office.

I have a round one of those in the corner of the office 

But in an Administration spurious claims can get in the way of resolving matters, if the Administrators get it wrong they could be personally liable and on £6 million it could be expensive.

It may need to be adjudicated on by an EFL Disciplinary Commission as a dispute between two clubs, that could take a while.

[Mr Popodopolous]

45 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I have a round one of those in the corner of the office 

But in an Administration spurious claims can get in the way of resolving matters, if the Administrators get it wrong they could be personally liable and on £6 million it could be expensive.

It may need to be adjudicated on by an EFL Disciplinary Commission as a dispute between two clubs, that could take a while.

What would happen if they just ignored it? As in "trying it on, we won't even add it to the creditors list". Or I expect they would try and just stick it in unsecured creditor maybe. 

EFL Disciplinary Commission you say? That would be interesting...and in my view would be the correct body to adjudicate- not only for the veracity of the claim, but also as it is as you say a dispute between 2 clubs. Derby fans are unsurprisingly quite bullish and dismiss the claim, validity etc- only time will tell.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What would happen if they just ignored it?

They can't.  They would have to decide on the validity, which could depend upon the EFL DC.

The point I think is more in the PR and the time delay and hassle it could cause, clearly a football creditor of £6 million has a significant impact on the propsals and amounts needed to buy the club. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, Hxj said:

They can't.  They would have to decide on the validity, which could depend upon the EFL DC.

The point I think is more in the PR and the time delay and hassle it could cause, clearly a football creditor of £6 million has a significant impact on the propsals and amounts needed to buy the club. 

I wonder if there is a scenario whereby the EFL have to pay Wycombe £6m and then the EFL pursue Derby to make good that same amount.

Yet another EFL Tribunal eh? Said it before but their fans on the usual platforms aren't worried, are dismissive etc.

Football Creditor seems an interesting strategy certainly.

[Hxj]

15 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Football Creditor seems an interesting strategy certainly.

It's a delay play only. 

64 days and counting down to the start of the January Transfer, 95 days to the end. Currently to be able to sign players in that window DCFC will need to clear all five of the Embargo actions and agree a business plan with the EFL, any single point which drags on will reduce the time for transfers and therefore the value of the club and teh chances of a successful takeover.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

Reading the Derby forum, a few observations.

1) Some of them think I hate them. Untrue, I just have a strong sense of ethics. Therefore that they get dealt with in the correct manner is quite important.

2) Taunting from the away end is part and parcel :laugh:. There is plenty of material as it stands.

3) If the stadium goes back to club ownership significantly under £81m, the EFL can indirectly take strong action. I suggest part/Section 3 of the Owners and Directors Test, a stringent EFL Business Plan feels legitimate. Separation of stadium company and club as part of it, why not.

4) What sort of business plan would you as fans find acceptable.

If your forum had much of a clue about free speech these points would be debated more broadly. Or you would allow those on who would put such a view.

You cannot just bypass the EFL, they can make things very difficult for a new owner if they feel certain loopholes have been sought. If I had a say I'd be imposing the most stringent requirements possible for a time.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Happy to respond to a constructive post by a poster on there. I can't join btw, not allowed. Possibly not a surprise given some of my past rants...emotive or similar but also biting back as I do bite back when I get unwarranted flak as most people would.

Quote

Well one thing we now know pop is reading our posts, not an issue I have read theirs. 

Suppose for both parties the worse thing about being quoted or not spoken about might be not being quoted or spoken about.

Quote

so pop, agree with you if PP is sold back at a discount, as Anne Widicombe would say it has something of the night about it. Still unsure  If the EFL have any power. Anyway this sis all conjecture at the moment.

It would be an interesting test case IMO. Not sure the EFL would appreciate it to say the least and a new owner getting off to a bad start with the EFL couldn't be positive- although I wonder if they could separate out the two bits as part of the business plan.

Quote

yes we do want a sustainable business plan where we keep within FFfP limits 

Yep, spend up to remaining headroom once all outstanding issues sorted- talking about Jan, seems fair to me. There's a lot to sort though and I'm not even talking about the ground here.

Quote

Pop all we want is to be treated like others FFP ( we only had one high spending year) the rest we financed by sales. How can people talk about Reading getting a smaller  Deduction than us when they overspent by tens of millions, we didn’t 

You'll find no arguments from me on Reading- I was criticising Reading a year and a half ago! Plus Stoke I have to question how the hell they justify that £30m Impairment, hopefully the EFL are scrutinising each and every penny of that. Reading, the thing there is that as with all clubs the 2019/20 and the 2020/21 results are added and halved. On the 3 years to 2019/20 in isolation, absolutely but we don't know how the 2020/21 might look but I thought they should be nailed for a 9 pts, although some reports said 6 and a further 3 suspended- reports suggested that Reading owning up and cooperating has helped.

A difference between Derby and Reading is that the Derby 9 with 3 more suspended is deemed to be a final settlement or proposed as such- whereas the Reading one could just be a first instalment, I saw that as well as a deduction, renewal of players on existing terms could prove difficult and they could face a further deduction in the next year or 2. If they get a deduction and sell Swift in Jan say, they could slide into real issues on the pitch? Saw a stat other day, he has chipped in with goals or assists about 2/3 of the clubs League goals or 60%, something..out of contract in the summer! Think Blackburn and renewal might pose an issue with quite a few key assets although selling Armstrong has surely helped them to ease things.

A troubling thing about Reading too? Rahman and Drinkwater loans, covered minimum 90% by Chelsea! Ridiculous! Their individual wage cap=£8.5k per week x 6 players, those 2 combined wages £170k so...no loan fees payable. Also suggest that for that wage level, Dann and Halilovic look suspiciously good players albeit signed on frees.

Quote

we are trying to bypass anything but I  would not blame a new owner for trying to get a points  Deduction 

Do you mean removed or reduced? Suppose a new owner might try but given that the burden of failure with these issues lies with the club and not the owner, there is an an attempt at bypassing arguably- not now so much but the delays of accounts to the EFL, the alleged procedural defences in May 2021, to sell as a Championship club was possible.

Quote

why don’t you come on this site and debate it

Would if I could!

Edited October 28, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous