Derby County

[Nuno Gomes]

46 minutes ago, Lucan said:

I find the size of this thread concerning.  Can someone summarise where we are so worked up over Derby County?

 

Lets just focus on our own team

Well done. I thought I might be the only one think 40+ pages OTT. I don’t deny Derby’s failings but maybe we should spend more of our time on BCFC?

[Mr Popodopolous]

I see the points being raised but in defence of the issues and indeed the thread- although the thread has really grown!

Precedents

IF Derby get off lightly, despite a myriad of failings and misconduct type accusations/charges, it penalises clubs such as ours.

The Big Club rule

The EFL failed with Aston Villa in 2018, yes they were saved as a club solvency wise but I think they needed to do more on the FFP and financial monitoring side post takeover- they did not. Is it because Aston Villa are a big club? Derby are also a fairly big club although not of the level of Aston Villa- it is incumbent upon the integrity of the game that the EFL treat them in a fair manner- there are actually Derby threads on many fans forums given their travails/actions.

Holding the feet to the fire

Don't suppose posts on forums actually do anything, but our club are strongly in favour of FFP and regulation- Steve Lansdown himself even Tweeted in 2019 after a win at Derby 'That felt good'- some believe that this was an indirect reference to FFP. Again what influence if any fans forums can have is debatable, but it can be a barometer- and I think a fair barometer of views is that Derby have cheated the regulations, attempted to cheat, delay, stall and this thread is reflective of the views. If the EFL continue to treat Derby in a firm but fair manner, then this should set a positive precedent.

Clubs don't exist in a vacuum

This overlaps with prior points, but no club exists in a vacuum- indeed the EFL is the clubs in a sense. The actions or treatment of one club can have a significant impact upon how things play out for others. In short, equality of treatment of all at this level is quite important.

Just on a side note, the spending is one thing, the attempts to cover up or make the numbers fit the £39m loss limit another still but quite another is the reaction of a lot of their fans. Read Twitter etc if you don't believe me. More than being irked, I just don't understand how they can consider themselves to be victims of the EFL, rival clubs or whoever. What did they suppose might happen if they used loopholes and pushed loopholes for many years- viewed Mel Morris as some kind of accounting mastermind- and crucially did not get up- they knew full well what was going on within reason, see the "EFL on strings" and so on. Now they are getting some proper regulation- and this is good because if the EFL regulate Derby heavily, they have to regulate everyone heavily.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Lucan said:

I find the size of this thread concerning.  Can someone summarise where we are so worked up over Derby County?

We are not are you?

1 hour ago, Nuno Gomes said:

we should spend more of our time on BCFC?

Why? FFP is something which impacts on every club.

Oh and no one is suggesting that you read any of it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On the lighter side, dunno if anyone has posted it already but Derby's prospective new owner everyone!

He appears to have deleted quite a lot of Tweets from his past as well, at least according to what I saw on other forums.

[chinapig]

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

On the lighter side, dunno if anyone has posted it already but Derby's prospective new owner everyone!

He appears to have deleted quite a lot of Tweets from his past as well, at least according to what I saw on other forums.

Looks like providing proof of funds might be an issue then. I don't expect him to do that on Twitter of course but if I was a Derby fan I wouldn't get too excited yet.

[Davefevs]

33 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Looks like providing proof of funds might be an issue then. I don't expect him to do that on Twitter of course but if I was a Derby fan I wouldn't get too excited yet.

How many times do we hear “so and so” is interested, or heading up a consortium and it goes nowhere?  Far too often.  Sometimes I’m sure it’s just to get a peak at the books.

[chinapig]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

How many times do we hear “so and so” is interested, or heading up a consortium and it goes nowhere?  Far too often.  Sometimes I’m sure it’s just to get a peak at the books.

Exactly. Going public with your alleged interest may also lead to many fans jumping on the bandwagon without checking whether you have the money you claim to have.

There was a fanbase of a certain club who thought their owner's wealth made them the 6th richest club in the country for instance.

[Lanterne Rouge]

11 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Exactly. Going public with your alleged interest may also lead to many fans jumping on the bandwagon without checking whether you have the money you claim to have.

There was a fanbase of a certain club who thought their owner's wealth made them the 6th richest club in the country for instance.

They are though, they`ve just chosen to spend it wisely and not waste it. Just wait till Wally decides to really go for it - we`ll be eating their dust.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting start to his potential tenure certainly, the Tweet.

That said, he claims that he has shown £100m in liquidity or somesuch. Rooney meanwhile is already talking of strengthening in January and extending player contracts??

Surely that largely won't be feasible until all issues with the EFL resolved. Would professional standing rules still be in play while issues unresolved?

If so, then by my calculations Derby will have depending on fitness 24 or 25 by January, Jagielka and Baldock expire in January.

You're allowed 23 of professional standing while issues persist, so bye bye to at least one of them maybe. One in, one out thereafter within wage and contractual restraints.

*Professional Standing=1 match or sub appearance at the relevant levels, but not JPT. Full explanations on Embargo Reporting Service.

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting start to his potential tenure certainly, the Tweet.

That said, he claims that he has shown £100m in liquidity or somesuch. Rooney meanwhile is already talking of strengthening in January and extending player contracts??

Surely that largely won't be feasible until all issues with the EFL resolved. Would professional standing rules still be in play while issues unresolved?

If so, then by my calculations Derby will have depending on fitness 24 or 25 by January, Jagielka and Baldock expire in January.

You're allowed 23 of professional standing while issues persist, so bye bye to at least one of them maybe. One in, one out thereafter within wage and contractual restraints.

*Professional Standing=1 match or sub appearance at the relevant levels, but not JPT. Full explanations on Embargo Reporting Service.

I suspect Wayne doesn’t really understand it all.  Running before he can walk I’d suggest.

[Mr Popodopolous]

46 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I suspect Wayne doesn’t really understand it all.  Running before he can walk I’d suggest.

Perhaps he's been given assurances, but then there is nothing to stop them moving to the softer embargo once:

1) All accounts submitted to EFL.

2) Outstanding accounts submitted to CH.

3) Profit and Sustainability submissions properly and fully with the EFL.

4) HMRC issue/payment schedule finalised.

Plus keeping up with transfer instalments as they fall due etc, but even the softer embargo/business plan should be tied to outstanding FFP/P&S headroom.

Think Arsenal kindly deferred a payment for Bielik and a big payment for Jozwiak to a Polish club is due in 2022.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Perhaps he's been given assurances, but then there is nothing to stop them moving to the softer embargo once:

1) All accounts submitted to EFL.

2) Outstanding accounts submitted to CH.

3) Profit and Sustainability submissions properly and fully with the EFL.

4) HMRC issue/payment schedule finalised.

Plus keeping up with transfer instalments as they fall due etc, but even the softer embargo/business plan should be tied to outstanding FFP/P&S headroom.

Think Arsenal kindly deferred a payment for Bielik and a big payment for Jozwiak to a Polish club is due in 2022.

I doubt he can really be given any assurances at this point….but if it makes him feel better thinking it’ll be ok, then let him carry on.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Read that the hearing is 2nd week of November.

Given a) The seven day deadline attached to the appeal from date of notice and b) The 3-4 weeks from date of notice of Points deduction, it's a deadline that is set in stone..

Are we therefore sure that Derby met the seven day deadline? Seems open to question IMO.

If Derby did not meet all requirements within seven days then I don't see why it isn't timebarred. Wigan's appeal an rejected appeal fit the time frame perfectly.

Procedural irregularities or failings at least? The written reasons should reveal all but if there is one much as a single relevant document that was put in on Day 8, it should fail on those grounds alone.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Edit. Wrong kinda law probably.

https://www.ukpandi.com/news-and-resources/articles/2017/england-and-wales---time-bars/

Well the EFL need not play by Queensbury rules that's for sure.

Win at all costs seems eminently fair given Derby's prolonged conduct.

In fact, I rather think that some of the new EFL regs were created at least in part with Derby in mind.

1) Beefed up owners and directors Test. Derby were linked with BZI last year. It arose in mid Oct 2020 this amendment.

2) Unable to bank profits on disposal of Tangible Fixed Assets for FFP. Derby may well have gone for this again under new owners.

3) The publicising of the Embargo Reporting Service. Derby have 5 charges on there, wonder how they voted?? Plus how they voted on Point 2.

4) The Professional Standing Regulation and the other Embargo related one that Reading fall under. Did this arise prior to Summer 2021? Wonder how Derby votes.

Anyway they reap what they sow, their actions have been responded to in a highly effective manner potentially enabled by Club votes.

Clearly they do and will apply to all clubs but I wonder if sorting Derby out was a factor in some of these.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had a little further think having read some posts on the Derby forum and revised my position slightly.

Can the EFL interfere directly in a returning of the stadium to club ownership? Not as such IMO, in short no.

Other Complications

Potentially MSD and HMRC but that's not a concern of the EFL is it.

However I stand by a view that it can become rather difficult for the club and new ownership moving forward if done without the EFL's knowledge, consent or say so- if they try and bypass the EFL in this regard, then though they can't decide upon the valuation, there are quite a few sticking points that can arise.

Valuation

Probably the least of them in some ways, but £81m to a substantially reduced amount even with Covid will not go unchecked at all by the EFL. Mel defended the valuation, not only in general but in the Hearing, went onto Talksport to discuss the issues about an undervalue transaction and it states in the accounts of Gellaw Newco 202 that it is fair value or a form of fair value.

The question about new Investigations or Hearings

I would suggest that this isn't so unlikely as Derby fans state, because of a mixture of the EFL regulations and the conditions under which the original transaction was approved- or some of them at least. Certainly there is nothing to prevent them from launching a new inquiry that I can see within their regulations- regulations that all clubs including Derby sign up to.

The relevant conditions when it came to the 2018 approval

Paragraphs 73-75 of the original Hearing that was published in August 2020

Note Paragraph 75 in particular- "Company outside of the Football Group" and "purchasing Company is deemed to be a separate operation to the Club Group".

The EFL will be expecting either in cash or at least in paper terms, a Fair Market Value rent to be paid on Pride Park as a result of this- you cannot reverse one without the other in FFP terms after a few short years. Cake and eat it...? Nah!

I would be insistent as the EFL for a new owner that the conditions in Paragraph 75 remain upheld- I don't see how you can simply reverse this after 3-4 years without the whole transaction and approval coming back into question. The EFL need to take a zero tolerance approach on this tbh.

In fact though less blatant, the bit in Paragraph 74 seems quite important too- 'ultimate approach' determined by the precise nature of any transaction that the Club undertook'. Plus if reconsolidated, suddenly P&S Rule 1.1.9 comes back into play.

Also see questions over the rent- are they yet fully resolved? Worth revisiting if not...

See 100 days for football activities=£1m per year.

Plus see the £4.16m per year market rent- seems a reasonable yield, around 5%.

Quote

"without there being any restriction on the number of days for which the Club would have access to Pride Park for football purposes".

A total different deal to what the EFL signed off on, in that respect.

Independent Valuers themselved still stood by their Fair Market Rent.

Club put their case on the rent...

...Unsure how one can say it's been totally resolved. 

 

"The result is based on the new stadium not operating a material part of the group's operations and therefore not being consolidated into the P&S results".

To return it to club ownership 3-4 years on would do just that!! I think he might mean 'new stadium company' though. Certainly to be compliant with P&S the stadium must be separate to the football group and the EFL cannot let that bit go.

EFL also need still on the rent bit, to go for the sensitivity of the rent bit. Para 106 b)

Burden of compliance and punishment

As with all clubs and FFP, it remains with the CLUB not the Owner and rightly so- therefore new Owner or not, it's another problem to be resolved. I suggest the EFL stand firm on a) The non consolidation issue and b) The rent sensitivity and push hard on each. Or impose significant restrictions as part of the new owner's business plan or propose a settlement agreement ie a meaningful punishment in lieu of waiving it.

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/202021/general-news-images/efl-v-derby-county--decision.pdf

Edited October 29, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Can the EFL reopen matters for the purposes of their own rules? Potentially yes, potentially no- doesn't strike me that there is anything within the relevant sections of their regulations that would explicitly bar them from doing so.

Take your pick!! Wide range isn't it? Maybe they allege misconduct, hell even suspicion or a complaint about alleged financial or other irregularity can lead to an investigation.

The misconduct route could be a new one to explore perhaps.

Plus, 84.2...carte blanche to some extent.

As the League deem appropriate in short.

Disciplinary Commission can also impose- well a great many types of decision/sanction it appears!

You could definitely fit the above scenarios to these rules and powers tbh. You order Derby to refrain from including the ground in their consolidated results to uphold the FFP agreement, and you perhaps also order that even if a paper transaction only, the rent is upheld for FFP purposes. You really push for something tough...

They could also maybe theoretically order the payment of compensation to Wycombe by Derby or by the EFL- or maybe by the EFL then Derby recompense the EFL if it gets that far.

The stadium a) Being reconsolidated and b) Going back at a much lower rate could also constitute new evidence as the scenario and facts would have materially changed. Fortunately the regulations allow for this too!

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-8-investigations-and-disciplinary-proceedings/

Ticks many boxes! It was not available in 2020 because Gellaw Newco 202 still owned the stadium, it is credible because it is a fact, it is relevant because it is an arms length transaction- like the idea of 94.7.3 if appropriate.

Fortunately the League Arbitration Panel also possess the chance to make their mark.

100.1.8 and 100.1.6 although could 100.1.7 contradict things a bit?

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-9--arbitration/

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-2---membership/

You refuse to accept easily the reconsolidation for FFP purposes. Material part of Group operations etc.

Fair Market Value...£81m and a massively reduced rate cannot both be right- esp as the far lower one would be an arms length transaction. EFL could investigate it for being below Fair Market Value perhaps and charge with misconduct if so?

Oh dear! Falls foul of the material aspect bit of the FFP approval in 2018!

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appendix-5-financial-fair-play-regulations/

Make no mistake, there would be a lot of scope for the EFL here if the possible scenario played out in this way. Gut feeling is that even if no charges, they could impose severe restrictions on the new owners- new owners must submit to the bits of the Owners and Directors Test that arose in mid October 2020 as well as the rest but for these purposes...

3.1.1 b) onwards through to the end of that section.

3.3.2 and 3.3.3 feeding into 3.2-3.2.2 give regulators some great powers if required.

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

Derby fans should read these and ponder- my take is that the EFL should not accept it without a very heavy price and use every lever at their disposal.

Or back on rational ground, a deal whereby the ground transfers at a price acceptable to both parties but remains deconsolidated from the club and there is a Fair Market Rent added even if only a paper transaction for FFP purposes. If Derby try to get round it though, the EFL need to go for them big time.

Edited October 30, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Well I decided to take a break from Derby for a day or two but will respond to Woodley Ram's Friday post now- but one bit of news, I am glad to see the EFL continuing to tighten their Governance- Nixon.

Discouraging frivolous appeals has to be a good thing, as does introducing another element of moral hazard. Unsure who highlighted the bits in red- wasn't me! Administrators get paid come what may though, don't they? I'd love it if Nick De Marco is out of pocket somehow or a creditor of Derby- don't like him at all, smug character that he is. Bad for football that one.

Woodley Ram, not the 15 point bit. Perhaps another day but the last post before that...

Quote

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

Seems fair.

Quote

we don't want boom and bust its not good for the old ticker.  We had one stupid year where we signed players for large sums and large wages and didn't get  return on them.  The others years we have more or less traded on a net basis.  We have for the last two years operated on a small operating budget. Wages are probably circa £15m. The damage had already been done. 

Seems fair but remember ongoing costs of amortisation depending on how it falls and which model used albeit a non cash expense, and then costs other than merely wages- when you say wages are you talking basic wages, or entire Group wages, inclusive of all costs of employment such as PAYE, NI etc? The way I look at DCFC's FFP position is to take the consolidated results then knock £7-8m off it- in 2015/16 it seemed to be the club then thereafter Sevco 5112 Limited. Source being the accounts to 2018 and then the EFL Hearing in 2020 which also included some figures for the 2018/19 season.

This next paragraph/segment is long so shall respond in 2 parts.

Quote

We (Mel) only submitted our accounts for a negative FFP after the immortalisation issue and did it on time. we had submitted them before but rightly was asked to submit them again showing a straight line methodology. (Note here. All player valuations ended in zero and didn't have a residual amount. The issue was that the amortisation was done more on a bell curve with higher amounts up front rather than on a straight line). We have since been in discussion (like Reading) with the EFL. The only issue we had was the appeal and Mel not being quiet. You shouldn't be penalised for that.  I think Reading should get more they are so far over is ridicules

Yes, it was how it was amortised over the contract- straight line or otherwise. Derby fan who posts on here made a great graph/chart with 3 different methods of amortisation over I think a 10 year period or something- not looked for a while. In respect of Reading, I've never looked to excuse their activities, I started on the questioning before it became more widespread, back in April 2020 when their 2018/19 accounts were released- make sure that you are looking at the right bits. I wonder if you might be looking at the club accounts in isolation- my interpretation of Reading's position is that it goes club accounts in 2017/18 and consolidated- Renhe Sports Management Limited- thereafter. Not so much the vocal bit as much as resisting, not submitting to CH that kinda thing- EFL alleged that Derby were late with their accounts to the EFL themselves in 2019/20 or in 2020- that's what the new evidence hearing was regarding when the EFL wanted new evidence to be taken into consideration for an appeal. I digress, I believe that for Reading it goes- Club-then consolidated as for Derby it went from 2015/16 to whenever, Club-then consolidated.

Quote

I agree the Covid impairment and how losses affect FFP (P&S) is a worry. The EFL need to come out with a rational of how they are dealing with it. (Advertising income, gate receipts, loss of entertainment other commercial activity) this should be hard as you should be able to see the loss from auditing previous years income. Also re Covid, the only way they can deduct amounts from FFP consideration is if Covid was a/is a Force Majeure. Otherwise teams should have planned for it and have taken steps to ensure that they remain within FFP (you can see where I am going here re admin appeal). BCFC must have lost £millions over the last couple of years so if you cannot deduct say the loss of £15-20m,ish from your FFP calculation then you will also be hit with an FFP points deduction?

The basis of one is now on the EFL site. There is also a definition- directly attributable to the Covid 19 to cover 2019/20 and 2020/21 only although my wording is a loose summary. Further, they have merged 2019/20 and 2020/21 into one period and then the idea behind that is they add the two together and halve it. Ticket Revenue, Season Ticket Revenue, refunds of the two, Commercial Income, events- all a) Comparable and b) Verifiable, TV revenue rebates this all seems fine for all clubs IMO. Stoke's Player Impairment attributable to Covid- around £30m- OTOH...looks at this stage to be a unique accounting treatment, although Everton in the PL may have claimed something similar. Player Impairment is normal but usually counts against FFP unless truly exceptional circs- Stoke Impaired £43m in total but about £12-13m of this goes through the accounts in the usual manner, that extra £30m though...

Quote

I agree, add Fulham not paying for Harry Wilson for 2 years and others will also be pushing the boundaries with FFP and the ethics of it.

That Fulham deal is unusual and needs further investigation although I have to wonder if that is merely a cash flow rather than an amortisation issue. If it's loan to buy, the latter coming in January then yes it could reduce amortisation for the present season. Can't think of any others that stand right out atm...if they don't go up this season however, it is possible that they face an FFP crunch in 2022/23.

Quote

Sorry spell check on my ipad. we are not trying to bypass anything. If we are able to use the rules to get a reduction of points then that's ok. After all isn't that what other clubs have done Birmingham, Sheffield Wednesday and it seems Reading?

Birmingham accepted their -9 and was broke down as such- 7 for the overspend, 3 for escalating losses and one back for cooperation. The reasoning behind halving Sheffield Wednesday's deduction felt spurious, to me anyway- why selling the ground in the wrong accounting period is a mitigating factor to the extent of halving a deduction is odd. However justice was done in that they went down and the -6 proved decisive but all the same seems unusual that it was halved. Even if you halve the -12, why no extra 3 for the escalating overspend- also see Birmingham for that very scenario.

Reading is altogether different to these two- no problem at all with negotiating/accepting an agreed decision as I haven't with Derby at this stage, although I have a problem with the withholding of accounts that seems to have occurred, not just from CH but the EFL too perhaps. I would suggest that a final settlement of -9 and 3 more suspended, and the usual business plan is preferable to at least two separate Independent Disciplinary Commissions- I don't expect the EFL to budge on the FFP issue. The administration appeal? Well that remains to be seen. How long would a new Independent Panel for the 3 years to 2018 and then a separate set of charges for the 3 years to 2019 take to conclude? Judging by history a long time! Remember Embargo conditions remain in play too while unresolved...how would that be for a new owner?

One more small bit- not aimed at you but a general observation to correct a few posters there. It isn't just stadium profits that are excluded, it is Tangible Fixed Asset profits verbatim- Blackburn and their training ground, seems to have been completed a week before the new rule took hold, an article suggested June 24th 2021 although the precise nature of the Regs it'd be interesting to see when it was deemed effective from.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

If the EFL wants to discourage frivolous appeals it could follow the example of courts and tribunals and require clubs to apply for leave to appeal, setting out their grounds.

This would filter out spurious appeals and those the commission decides have no prospect of success. It would also build up a body of case law.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

If the EFL wants to discourage frivolous appeals it could follow the example of courts and tribunals and require clubs to apply for leave to appeal, setting out their grounds.

This would filter out spurious appeals and those the commission decides have no prospect of success. It would also build up a body of case law.

You're probably overqualified for their legal department tbh!

Why not email them the suggestion- enquiries@efl.com!

There is though a limit- seven days- for the force majeure one. As in seven days to get everything in from the date that the EFL apply the notice. I hope that has been adhered to otherwise the EFL need to add that to the defence/grounds for challenge.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

The FA do frivolous appeals for red cards, lengthening the ban where so.

[chinapig]

34 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You're probably overqualified for their legal department tbh!

Why not email them the suggestion- enquiries@efl.com!

There is though a limit- seven days- for the force majeure one. As in seven days to get everything in from the date that the EFL apply the notice. I hope that has been adhered to otherwise the EFL need to add that to the defence/grounds for challenge.

I'm no lawyer but I have in my time provided analytical services to some senior judges.

Obviously you have to allow a reasonable time for a club to draft it's application for leave but the process is still quicker.

In the case of tribunals for instance the majority of applications are refused as there are no grounds. You have to show that the original decision was wrong in law. It's not enough to just disagree with it.

A similar process could be applied to EFL decisions, though we are talking regulations and rules rather than law of course so it would be lighter touch.

I'll await Tracey Crouch's report before I give the EFL the benefit of my advice.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Thanks @chinapig that's interesting stuff certainly.

Talking of the law, saw an interesting post on Derby forum about 5 mins ago...is there a great difference in the club having to cover the legal costs and the administrators having to cover it when it comes to an appeal? The club itself has to cover them come what may.

Quote

The Administrators are appealing the PD for the benefit of the creditors - if it gets removed or reduced, the price will be higher and more cash will go to creditors.

How on earth can Administrators be expected to rationally and fairly weigh up the relative merit of lodging an appeal if the threat of losing £300k is hanging over them? 

What an absolutely ludicrous proposal. Let's see them get that passed without a legal challenge. 

The cost falls on a club regardless when it comes to the EFL Force Majeure appeal stipulations- can a club in administration afford to lose that cash if the appeal yields no notable benefit? As I said before, I've no issues with mechanisms to discourage frivolous appeals. I welcome them tbh.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Some Derby fans truly do not get it. Can't print screen, won't copy and paste,will just stick the URLs up. Suffice to say though, the embargo and intense monitoring will not be lifted until such time as all conditions satisfied.

I don't suppose I should be surprised by now but I am.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38482-derby-to-fight-12-point-deduction-according-to-nixon/?do=findComment&comment=2225245

There is no upper time limit on the EFL in this process and no accounts filed=no embargo lifted.

To 2018 and the 4 points is just one part of the equation ha. Until resolved in full it remains-irrespective of Mel, administration team or new owners!!

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38482-derby-to-fight-12-point-deduction-according-to-nixon/?do=findComment&comment=2225260

Again, no FFP assessment or settlement means no resolution means no cleanish slate for a new owner.

No accounts to CH combined with no settlement means no removal of embargo.

No accounts to the EFL possibly likewise.

The self righteous victimhood from some is hard to fathom. As for RamsTrust it's ignorance, arrogance or I don't know what- most of their questions are easily findable online.

The club, fans whoever. Arrogance in abundance.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I also don't understand why the EFL will have to lift their accounts requirements.

A few Derby fans have suggested it but can anyone explain it? Strikes me as the tail wagging the dog somewhat.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I also don't understand why the EFL will have to lift their accounts requirements.

A few Derby fans have suggested it but can anyone explain it? Strikes me as the tail wagging the dog somewhat.

On 26/10/2021 at 19:59, Hxj said:

On 26/10/2021 at 18:03, 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.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

50 minutes ago, Hxj said:

 

Thanks @Hxj

Guess that if they ie Derby decide they don't need to, the restrictions should stay in play. Or if their new owner decides otherwise etc...

Section 3 of the Owners and Directors Test gives the EFL extensive powers of course.

[Hxj]

On a related issue Cardiff really need to get moving with their season.

As regards Derby -

With 17 (gross) points from 15 games that gives them a generous season total with no deduction of 53 points.  That would see them survive in all but one of the last 10 seasons. 

With the 12 point admin deduction a net score of 41 that would see them relegated in 5 of the last seven seasons.

However Cardiff in 21st place are currently on target for 37 points ..... which on current forcasts would mean that Derby will survive on 38 points, a total that would have seen them relegated by at least 2 points in every one of the last 10 seasons.

[REDOXO]

On 31/10/2021 at 15:29, chinapig said:

I'm no lawyer but I have in my time provided analytical services to some senior judges.

Obviously you have to allow a reasonable time for a club to draft it's application for leave but the process is still quicker.

In the case of tribunals for instance the majority of applications are refused as there are no grounds. You have to show that the original decision was wrong in law. It's not enough to just disagree with it.

A similar process could be applied to EFL decisions, though we are talking regulations and rules rather than law of course so it would be lighter touch.

I'll await Tracey Crouch's report before I give the EFL the benefit of my advice.

Exactly as you say. It is depressing that so many appeals are even heard by institutions on the basis we don’t agree with the decision and that most people think that disagreeing is grounds for appeal in of itself. Nevertheless I have seen decisions appealed with out grounds at City Councils and internal and external employment tribunals. 

[REDOXO]

On 29/10/2021 at 04:25, Davefevs said:

How many times do we hear “so and so” is interested, or heading up a consortium and it goes nowhere?  Far too often.  Sometimes I’m sure it’s just to get a peak at the books.

A peak at the books. Has anyone had one of those since 2017? :laugh:!

I do take your point, that an entity that is considered serious in any MnA will assess the financial data provided and reach a decision based upon book value AND strategic value in many cases.

The purchase of Derby County would be considered a strategic in most people’s view as clearly the current suitors in all cases are looking to own a football club in a certain division with a past and not trying to buy just the book value. Derby would not have the ability to be broken down and sold piecemeal unless the club would become defunct which pretty much leaves one reason to own them….Because you want to!

NOW as I have taken a few days off from this god forsaken place (the whole of OTIB not just this thread) what is the summarized state of play @Mr Popodopolous @Hxj Dave Fevs AND anyone else? 
 

oh and @Mr Popodopolousi was banned over there too. 
 

1 Does anyone outside the club including all prospective buyers the EFL HMIR etc know anymore about the real financial situation at the club now and over recent years?

2 Do we know for certain there is an appeal regarding a perceived Force Majeur and that Derby are claiming that Covid is responsible for its fall into administration? And what are their chances (personally I think that’s a Hail Mary unlesS the EFL have something in their rules that states this may be considered a factor) 
 

3 How many prospective purchasers are there?

4 Derby have a suspended points deduction as I understand it plus a further points deduction possible for not providing their accounts to the EFL where does that stand?
 

All answers and other summarized detail would be great as this thread is multi faceted and most will find it difficult to keep what appears to be one of the great fuckfests of football history straight without regular summaries. 
 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2021 by REDOXO

[chinapig]

56 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Exactly as you say. It is depressing that so many appeals are even heard by institutions on the basis we don’t agree with the decision and that most people think that disagreeing is grounds for appeal in of itself. Nevertheless I have seen decisions appealed with out grounds at City Councils and internal and external employment tribunals. 

Yes, sometimes a tribunal will allow an appeal to go ahead on what they regard as natural justice grounds. For example where an individual employee is taking on a multinational company. This amounts to little more than giving them their day in court even if they have little hope of success.

Not something that applies to Derby though, plucky little victims that they are.

[REDOXO]

23 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Yes, sometimes a tribunal will allow an appeal to go ahead on what they regard as natural justice grounds. For example where an individual employee is taking on a multinational company. This amounts to little more than giving them their day in court even if they have little hope of success.

Not something that applies to Derby though, plucky little victims that they are.

I mainly live in the USA, the concept of natural justice is a completely different animal here. As you my know. However what will happen is branches of local, national and corporate government will hear appeals on the basis of someone at a higher level does not ‘like personally’ the earlier decision and not on the fallibility of an earlier ruling but not hear them when the shoe is on the other foot. 
 

The concept of The Supreme Court here gives the Prolls  the idea you can keep appealing decisions because you don’t like the earlier decision all the way up as The SC is rarely seen to say we can’t hear that as the decision was not wrong and their is no new evidence. 
 

However Plucky little Derby bless them could use a couple of those guys at the EFL justifying themselves.

Edited November 2, 2021 by REDOXO

[chinapig]

3 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

I mainly live in the USA, the concept of natural justice is a completely different animal here. As you my know. However what will happen is branches of local, national and corporate government will hear appeals on the basis of someone at a higher level does not ‘like personally’ the earlier decision and not on the fallibility of an earlier ruling but not hear them when the shoe is on the other foot. 
 

The concept of The Supreme Court here gives the Prolls  the idea you can keep appealing decisions because you don’t like the earlier decision all the way up as The SC is rarely seen to say we can’t here that as the decision was not wrong and their is no new evidence. 
 

However Plucky little Derby bless them could use a couple of those guys at the EFL justifying themselves.

Don't get me started on a judicial system where judges are appointed to the Supreme Court on political grounds or I'll go way off topic!

[REDOXO]

1 minute ago, chinapig said:

Don't get me started on a judicial system where judges are appointed to the Supreme Court on political grounds or I'll go way off topic!

We will stop shortly. But oh effing yes. A judge elected on political grounds is in no way ever going to give you skewed decisions! There is a 3/6 majority of Trumpian **** wits in a co equal branch of government. Its just another example of the fallibility of a hacked constitution that politicians judges and the media project infallibility on, on a daily basis.
 

Meanwhile we gonna win today?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Will look at the thread in detail later but you were banned too eh @REDOXO

Ha well at you reached that stage, I was banned before I even joined and @Hxj before even that stage was.

Their take on the section 3 of the Owners and Directors Test would be interesting but wonder if they're even allowed to discuss. Doesn't fit the weird combination of upbeat and victimhood a lot of their fans seem to have, lot of rubbish about an EFL vendetta on varied platforms.

I'll offer relevant snippets of Section 3 as well. Simplified and summarised.

New owner has to submit to:

*EFL being allowed to use Regulation 16.20- that's the budgetary one- where appropriate.

*As well as all other steps that the EFL see fit.

This is in order to allow the EFL to ensure compliance and not only ensure but monitor it too, with Regulations 16-19, think it mentioned varied others too but they have significant power over a new owner if required. Carte blanche for the EFL in some ways.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

1 Does anyone outside the club including all prospective buyers the EFL HMIR etc know anymore about the real financial situation at the club now and over recent years?

The Administrators will have a good handle on the numbers by now.  They need to be published shortly at which point everyone will know what the balance sheet will look lke.

 

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

2 Do we know for certain there is an appeal regarding a perceived Force Majeur and that Derby are claiming that Covid is responsible for its fall into administration? And what are their chances (personally I think that’s a Hail Mary unlesS the EFL have something in their rules that states this may be considered a factor) 

Yes the appeal is due to be heard next week.  The issue I think is not on whether 'Covid' qualifies, but more was it the sole reason for the Administration.  Given the pre-existing HMRC debt, there was a winding up order in January 2020, and the restarting of winding up orders by HMRC in October 2021, plus the apparent lack of funding from Morris in the intervening period, I have serious doubts that any appeal will succeed.

 

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

3 How many prospective purchasers are there?

Allegedly two or three.  I have my doubts about Chris Krichner, something doesn't feel right about his public wealth and the difference with the suggested wealth available.

 

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

4 Derby have a suspended points deduction as I understand it plus a further points deduction possible for not providing their accounts to the EFL where does that stand?

Derby have the following:

An actual 12 points penalty for Administration - under appeal

An agreed 3 points penalty for failure to pay football wages - suspended until 30 June 2022 - activated if there is another non-payment.

A points penalty for EFL FFP failings, Morris says 4 points - I suspect significantly higher.  Currently under negotiation as to whether or not an agreed sanction can be reached.

 

[REDOXO]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Will look at the thread in detail later but you were banned too eh @REDOXO

Ha well at you reached that stage, I was banned before I even joined and @Hxj before even that stage was.

Their take on the section 3 of the Owners and Directors Test would be interesting but wonder if they're even allowed to discuss. Doesn't fit the weird combination of upbeat and victimhood a lot of their fans seem to have, lot of rubbish about an EFL vendetta on varied platforms.

 

4 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The Administrators will have a good handle on the numbers by now.  They need to be published shortly at which point everyone will know what the balance sheet will look lke.

 

Yes the appeal is due to be heard next week.  The issue I think is not on whether 'Covid' qualifies, but more was it the sole reason for the Administration.  Given the pre-existing HMRC debt, there was a winding up order in January 2020, and the restarting of winding up orders by HMRC in October 2021, plus the apparent lack of funding from Morris in the intervening period, I have serious doubts that any appeal will succeed.

 

Allegedly two or three.  I have my doubts about Chris Krichner, something doesn't feel right about his public wealth and the difference with the suggested wealth available.

 

Derby have the following:

An actual 12 points penalty for Administration - under appeal

An agreed 3 points penalty for failure to pay football wages - suspended until 30 June 2022 - activated if there is another non-payment.

A points penalty for EFL FFP failings, Morris says 4 points - I suspect significantly higher.  Currently under negotiation as to whether or not an agreed sanction can be reached.

 

Thanks Lads. Yep I was a member of their board for three years (well before this hit the fan) for a number of reasons, but got kicked off! 

ok here we go!

Ok so the administrator will be publishing figures and unless there is something strange going on they must be what is being handed to the interested party’s. Who obviously will be doing their due diligence internally prior to a Letter of Intent. Do we know if they have received a LoI?

Yes the appeal always looked a Hail Mary to add some value, however it was sliced. 
 

Yes interested party’s is a very loose term. I’m interested in lots of things! I suppose it goes back to my previous comment about an LoI. Also what is in the minds of the purchaser. Some might like to rebuild a club and not bother with all of the current charade with appeals or over paid players and huge debt to HM GOVT. The idea of appeals could be completely flawed, but the administrator gets paid either way. 
 

Ok so if I’m understanding correctly Derby start next season minus three if wages are not paid to players. I guess the income taxes are a part of that, so we can all assume HM REVENUE are getting paid players taxes and NI contributions. 
 

we are unclear as to FFP Penalty up to this point as it’s only Morris that has mentioned the number. The EFL are negotiating further with administrators, however there is nothing more sophisticated than leverage, so I would suggest the EFL could end them at any time and are only in them to try and give the administrators a fighting chance of them selling the club (Derby fans take note) 

So to be clear @Hxjthe missing three years accounts to the EFL is this another points deduction issue, or does this form part of the administrators negotiations?

 

Thanks all this helps and anyone can pop in to this thread and know where we are at from here. 

[chinapig]

2 hours ago, REDOXO said:

We will stop shortly. But oh effing yes. A judge elected on political grounds is in no way ever going to give you skewed decisions! There is a 3/6 majority of Trumpian **** wits in a co equal branch of government. Its just another example of the fallibility of a hacked constitution that politicians judges and the media project infallibility on, on a daily basis.
 

Meanwhile we gonna win today?

Let's just say the Constitution and Bill of Rights may be a tad overrated.

And if we lose tonight I intend to appeal.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

Ok so if I’m understanding correctly Derby start next season minus three if wages are not paid to players. I guess the income taxes are a part of that, so we can all assume HM REVENUE are getting paid players taxes and NI contributions. 

Are you sure the taxes have been paid?  Not sure how they’ve racked up such an HMRC debt otherwise?  Or are you saying not paying HMRC should trigger minus three points?  If so, surely they’ve failed that already.  I guess there’s a subtle different between paying a players wages and paying the players taxes?

[Hxj]

58 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Ok so the administrator will be publishing figures and unless there is something strange going on they must be what is being handed to the interested party’s.

The published figures will be a summary.  Full details will be provided if you can meet the Administrators' demands.

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

Derby start next season minus three if wages are not paid to players.

Nope - the penalty will be applied at the date of default - then it is potentially suject to deferral to next season if Derby are relegated without the deduction.

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

I guess the income taxes are a part of that, so we can all assume HM REVENUE are getting paid players taxes and NI contributions. 

Nope - paying the amounts due to HMRC is not part of paying your football wages.  However having overdue HMRC PAYE/NIC debts puts you into an embargo.

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

The EFL are negotiating further with administrators, however there is nothing more sophisticated than leverage

There is also the Business Plan which will need to be agreed or imposed on the exit from Administration.

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

So to be clear @Hxjthe missing three years accounts to the EFL is this another points deduction issue, or does this form part of the administrators negotiations?

A points penalty can be imposed for any breach of the Regulations.  I suspect that everything will be wrapped up in one large agreed decison.

 

The other issue which needs to be endlessly repeated to hope it gets picked up elsewhere is HMRC's published policy on voting against CVAs, where there is an arrangement where some parties are treated preferentially as Football Creditors are.  Whilst a CVA and an Administration are different they have the same net outcome.  If HMRC vote against the Administrators' proposals and those proposals are lost then DCFC is likely to go into Liquidatin unless all creditors are paid in full.

[Mr Popodopolous]

That's a great summary @Hxj

I would say that if 9 + a further 3 suspended is to cover everything then that's pretty generous of the EFL IMO. Obviously there's the 12 points that they are appealing and Derby fans seem increasingly bullish about this albeit could be small numbers still. Albeit on the HMRC bit I did read one site that said that they would be open to accepting but it depends on varied factors. The last paragraph does not sound fantastic. Can only assume the HMRC amount is at least in part linked to tax arrears.

Quote

No it is not true. Having been involved in company voluntary arrangements and advising directors on their options since 1996 we can safely say that HMRC will take each case on its merits.  

• Is a CVA the best option for creditors? 
• Or is administration or liquation the best outcome? 

It is for the insolvency practitioner and the directors to work that out together.

HMRC will approve company voluntary arrangement proposals if they are properly structured, well thought through, supported by a detailed financial forecast and a statement of affairs and comparisons of outcome to show the difference between liquidation or a CVA. But one of the key tests is this:  IS THE BUSINESS VIABLE?

Additionally, HMRC will not support CVAs when there has been poor management, lack of financial information, regular late filing of tax returns or annual accounts and lots of tax arrears going back for a long time. We call this the compliance test.

https://www.companyrescue.co.uk/guides-knowledge/guides/hmrc-and-the-cva-process-3834/

Interesting post from Ghost of Clough on the FFP/P&S issue.

Quote

4 points for overspending in the 3 years to 2018 based on a standard amortisation policy.

EFL claim is for an additional 8 points for failing other years, minus 3 for accepting the deal on the table.

DCFC (or Mel) claim is that we shouldn't be punished for further periods due to the circumstances (ordinarily we'd have been punished for 2018 and then have time to address things for the 2019 period and beyond).

In this argument, Derby perhaps claiming that any punishment beyond 2018 wouldn't be fair as they had no chance to rectify it at the time so perhaps they are proposing it should be 4 pts to 2018 and then nothing thereafter, save for monitoring the present period and requirements.

If Derby want to play that game, perhaps the EFL should look at charges of misconduct for every single offence and push for a points penalty with each...a lot of their actions might qualify.

1. No Accounts to EFL- misconduct?
2. No Accounts to CH- misconduct?
3. No P&S calculations- misconduct?
4. HMRC issue- misconduct?

Would any/all qualify?

Would also ask you, what kind of business plan should the EFL impose on the new owner- indeed what would you impose if you were the EFL @Hxj ? I would certainly make it that for this season at least, if at all possible, every inbound transfer has to be run by them and only approved if it fits the correct criteria. Certainly would be easier if they haven't submitted to CH- professional standing rule could that remain in play while that is ongoing. Do you think the accounts failings could also qualify for professional standing as well as HMRC or would they be the more lenient part of the embargo rules?

Edited November 2, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

On the general note of it all, these rules.

I did read on the Derby forum that Mel Morris goaded the EFL on Talksport or similar to some extent in an interview. I vaguely remember it, I listen to Talksport periodically and he basically said about the ground saga in the early days "I'd rather take on the EFL than HMRC" or words to that effect.

While HMRC can liquidate companies in a sense so yeah get it, he was not thinking- I wonder why he did not ponder a) The professional standing rule b) The 16.20 whereby the EFL can compel clubs to work to a budget c) The ability seemingly to withdraw approval for the Marriott renewal and so on. He really did not choose his words carefully.

Taking on the EFL persistently has landed Derby at best for now, with a £4.5k per week wage cap for 6 free transfers, or loans for 6 months- no loan fees, no transfer fees, unable to pay higher than the wage of the loan player at the parent club ie unable to top their wage up and seemingly if necessary the ability to withdraw approval for a contract renewal if it doesn't fit the terms. Oh and the professional standing rule- falls to 16 between windows and 23 during the window...think they already have over 23 and Jagielka and Baldock expire in January sometime...Unsure how signing on fees are accounted for under those regulations.

Granted it's all within the regulations but I doubt his actions and words helped. It's largely down to him and the club that Derby are in this position. Plus his mate Stephen Pearce too probably- he after all at that time was the qualified accountant in the room?

Interested in your take on this too @AnotherDerbyFan seems to me that he had been playing with fire somewhat. Playing a bit of a dangerous game.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Derby perhaps claiming that any punishment beyond 2018 wouldn't be fair as they had no chance to rectify it at the time so perhaps they are proposing it should be 4 pts to 2018 and then nothing thereafter, save for monitoring the present period and requirements.

This would be a weak argument imo even if the cause was a slip of the pen but even more so since it was an egregious attempt to cheat the system. Case dismissed!

[REDOXO]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Are you sure the taxes have been paid?  Not sure how they’ve racked up such an HMRC debt otherwise?  Or are you saying not paying HMRC should trigger minus three points?  If so, surely they’ve failed that already.  I guess there’s a subtle different between paying a players wages and paying the players taxes?

Exactly, with your last sentence.... I'm just saying that right now the players have to be paid. Paying the players income tax must be part of the players wages, as such HMRC must be currently being paid on current wages. The 25m is for previously unpaid... 

HOWEVER if HMRC is not being paid currently then yes that should trigger the deduction as its the players taxes as such their money........Nevertheless, @Hxjwho has infinitely more knowledge says that it does not mean that and the Inland Revenue may not be being paid....WOW. What a mess....  

Edited November 2, 2021 by REDOXO

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Exactly, with your last sentence.... I'm just saying that right now the players have to be paid. Paying the players income tax must be part of the players wages, as such HMRC must be currently being paid on current wages. The 25m is for previously unpaid... 

HOWEVER if HMRC is not being paid currently then yes that should trigger the deduction as its the players taxes as such their money.

Got you….hence probably why Mel didn’t want to start / carry on paying wages AND now Tax too.  If so, what a complete anchor with a capital W.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Davefevs

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

This would be a weak argument imo even if the cause was a slip of the pen but even more so since it was an egregious attempt to cheat the system. Case dismissed!

I'm inclined to agree with this- however you can never tell with Independent Panels, the Sheffield Wednesday deduction being halved is/was a shocker.

Suffice to say that view is gaining traction on DCFCFans, the one I posted. They still think they are victims IMO, it's beyond loyalty and denial, the RamsTrust q's and observations to the EFL are a perfect example but the mindset it is hard to fathom.

Just read these and make your own minds up!

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

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

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

@Hxj @Davefevs @REDOXO

Still can't fathom some of them and their narratives- especially from a group who called for enhanced regulations in 2011/2012 time.

Well that is strange, cannot find the stuff from the past now...

Edited November 2, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[REDOXO]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Got you….hence probably why Mel didn’t want to start / carry on paying wages AND now Tax too.  If so, what a complete anchor with a capital W.

I added to the previous post as Hxj's view is different and he knows loads more than me.

[REDOXO]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm inclined to agree with this- however you can never tell with Independent Panels, the Sheffield Wednesday deduction being halved is/was a shocker.

Suffice to say that view is gaining traction on DCFCFans, the one I posted. They still think they are victims IMO, it's beyond loyalty and denial, the RamsTrust q's and observations to the EFL are a perfect example but the mindset it is hard to fathom.

Just read these and make your own minds up!

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

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

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

@Hxj @Davefevs @REDOXO

Still can't fathom some of them and the seeming blaming EFL narrative- especially from a group who called for enhanced regulations in 2011/2012 time.

Well that is strange, cannot find the stuff from the past now...

Yes I nipped out to The Rams Trust site....Nearly all of the questions come at it like they are in some kind of battle with an idiot organization that hates them for no apparent reason....Brushing over millions of unpaid taxes, failure to submit accounts with multiple rule breaches a ground that doesn't belong to the club anymore and being in administration....WOW! Donald Trump should run for MP for Derbyshire with that level of Cognitive Dissonance.  

[Hxj]

Albeit on the HMRC bit I did read one site that said that they would be open to accepting but it depends on varied factors. @Mr Popodopolous

I completely agree with your quote, but would respectfully point out to m'lud that it doesn't take into account HMRC's published position where preference is given to one group of non-preferential creditors over another.  Precisely what Football Creditors are.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

Yes I nipped out to The Rams Trust site....Nearly all of the questions come at it like they are in some kind of battle with an idiot organization that hates them for no apparent reason....Brushing over millions of unpaid taxes, failure to submit accounts with multiple rule breaches a ground that doesn't belong to the club anymore and being in administration....WOW! Donald Trump should run for MP for Derbyshire with that level of Cognitive Dissonance.  

Always thought in a lighthearted way, that Mel was Derbyshire's answer to the Donald tbh! You see shades of it given he said he was in the 2020 hearing "An enemy of the EFL state" the most memorable, also that the EFL especially Shaun Harvey had an axe to grind with him and Derby personally...an agenda that kinda thing. Couple of those bolded bits, could they be actionable? Who knows but life is too short. Found his claims in the EFL hearing etc. Edit- just googled, absolute privilege so that'd be a no.

Quote

20) We heard factual evidence on behalf of the Club by:
a) Mel Morris. Mr Morris has throughout the relevant period been the owner and Chairman of the Club. He gave evidence about his purchase of Pride Park from the Club and the background to that sale. His witness statement also contained a considerable amount of evidence about the Club’s wider relationship with the EFL – a relationship which he characterises as i) Involving ‘dislike’ of him and the Club by the EFL ii) Him being an ‘enemy of the EFL state’, and iii) The EFL having an ‘axe to grind against [him] personally

Paragraphs 21 and 22 also seem to build on it a bit further, his claims/perceptions.

Quote

21) Given

a) The numerous suggestions made in Mr Morris’ witness statements about the EFL (and in particular Mr Harvey and Mr Craig) having some sort of ‘agenda’ against the Club and/or him,

b) The manner in which certain witnesses were cross-examined, and

c) The suggestions made in the Club’s closing submission about aspects of the FA’s factual evidence

we make it clear at the outset that we considered that each of the factual witnesses called by the EFL from whom we heard gave their evidence honestly and were doing their best to help us on the relevant issues. Regardless of how Mr Morris might perceive the way that he and the Club are viewed by the EFL, we reject any suggestion that the EFL’s factual evidence was in any way tainted by animosity or dislike (and, for the avoidance of doubt, reject any suggestion that such animosity or dislike was established on the evidence before us), or that the EFL’s factual evidence was in any way unreliable as a result.

22) Although we return below to address the Club’s suggestion that the EFL has been motivated to bring these Charges against the Club by some improper stimulus, we also make it clear at the outset that we reject that suggestion. The evidence that we heard and the documentary evidence before us simply did not bear out such an assertion.

Found the stuff from them in the past as well, even features some of the same individuals.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmcumeds/509/509vw10.htm

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmcumeds/writev/792/fg15.htm

Edited November 2, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

Albeit on the HMRC bit I did read one site that said that they would be open to accepting but it depends on varied factors. @Mr Popodopolous

I completely agree with your quote, but would respectfully point out to m'lud that it doesn't take into account HMRC's published position where preference is given to one group of non-preferential creditors over another.  Precisely what Football Creditors are.

Yeah I'll go with that! I did read it but you seem to know a lot about it...more than me! More nuanced than a piece online I guess and this will be a very interesting test case- sure there will have been companies and sole traders, individuals but none with a public profile such as Derby.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Saw this on DCFCFans.

Will just pull this snippet of the quote out and come back to it tomorrow, and leave Derby for tonight.

Quote

I know this is boring but I've been pulled in to reading otib and their discussion on us. 

I don't really understand their obsession with us not filing accounts with CH like it's a crime against humanity. I thought it was known that the reason why we've not filed accounts was due to the fact that a fundamental feature of our accounting process has been under scrutiny for so long (years and years) by the efl. Hence why they've not been filed. I also don't quite understand why this in itself has given us (or not) a sporting advantage. Is not filing accounts with CH an offence in itself with proscribed penalty? Surely it is dependent on the outcome of discussions with the efl about the acceptability of amortisation techniques which has been ongoing for literally 2+years?

Yes- addition to the Embargo Reporting Service until such time as it is rectified. See below...

Quote

Championship

Derby County

Regulation 16.2 - Failure to provide audited annual accounts

Regulation 16.3 - Annual Accounts not filed with Companies House

Regulation 17 - Default in payments to HMRC

Profit and Sustainability Rules - non-submission of audited accounts

Club in administration

16.3. Just one of many bits that will need sorting one way or another, as part of a final settlement.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10162069/Derby-County-learn-week-appeal-against-12-point-deduction-successful.html

Timing wise it totally makes sense given that it would have been 4 weeks or so since news of the appeal came to light.

Where I have to question is if there has been any leeway whatsoever regarding the timing. If any little document or bit of evidence that was required within 7 days of the notice- the notice perhaps was 22nd September 2021- came in on Day 8, then that surely would be grounds to challenge the legitimacy never mind the overall case.

They have a real cheek appealing tbh, but what would be hilarious so surely too much to ask is if Derby had made some kinda procedural error or failing in their appeal, and the case failed on a technicality- if Carlsberg did EFL appeals...

I know Wigan appealed but Wigan were not guilty/accused of everything else. Hell were they even straight with the EFL on medical records? Kazim-Richards was due to be out for many months, Jagielka but especially Baldock were permitted to sign to January as part of that- especially Baldock.

Tonight, Baldock and Kazim-Richards both start...first thing EFL need to do is refuse them if professional standing accurate to renew those 2 in January.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Would there be any scope I wonder for the EFL to permit additions such as these only on month by month contracts, so that if they return significantly sooner than anticipated the emergency signing player leaves at the end of the relevant month, bye bye.

[Hxj]

Both Cardiff and Derby lost today,

Cardiff really need to get moving with their season.

As regards Derby -

With 17 (gross) points from 16 games that gives them a generous season total with no deduction of 49 points.  That would see them survive in all but two of the last 10 seasons. 

With the 12 point admin deduction a net score of 37 that would see them relegated in all of the last 10 seasons.

However Cardiff in 21st place are currently on target for an ungenerous 34 points ..... which on current forcasts would mean that Derby will survive on 35 points, a total that would have seen them relegated by at least 4 points in every one of the last 10 seasons.

I've ignored Reading for now as there is no official announcement and there are reports of a 12 points deduction of which 3 are suspended and a 9 points deduction of which 3 are suspended.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

Wouldn't Derby be due the 2nd deduction too this season?

If this one upheld, that one implemented then - 21 surely would see them drop.

Worth a read of the comments underneath the article too, no sympathy for Derby. Albeit just 10-15 comments but I think there is precious little sympathy among Championship fans or clubs/club hierarchy.

[Mr Popodopolous]

May as well add a little.

Took a quick read of their forum this morning...some are saying but by no means a majority that they would rather get all the points hit in one go this season. Something makes me think that the 9 points with a further 3 suspended should be applicable at time it has the most effect but it's a view I understand and a bit of a change of tune...too convenient and neat in some ways.

However some are optimistic indeed...a couple of posters suggested the -12 gets overturned, a new owner comes in pays debts and embargo lifted to sign in January with no sign of the -9 this season.

Few issues with that...

1. New owner has to agree- or have imposed on them- a business plan of some kind. Linked to the exit from administration?
2. This is perhaps separate to the one based on any FFP settlement- this would require a 2 year or 1 year business plan plus it would cover the remainder of this season.
3. Why would the EFL let them strengthen in January with FFP issues outstanding, contested or unresolved as they might well be by then? That really would be cake and eat it territory! They've been allowed their signings.
4. Said it before but Regulation 16.20, combined with Section 3 of Owners and Directors Test...this could enable the EFL to keep the club in stasis irrespective of ownership until all matters resolved to their satisfaction.
5. Paying off debts is one thing, but also the regulations about accounts and FFP submissions- again why should the EFL ease matters notably if any of these remain outstanding come January?

The EFL have various tools with which to exert leverage- I hope they utilise them to the full.

As for the controversial issue of Force Majeure and administration -12...I hope a successful appeal, possibly the fact they made an appeal at all, makes the EFL continue to go in hard on other matters but that's beside the point for a minute.

Again, solely? Dunno- the EFL's period for Covid losses to be exempted was only the last 2 seasons, although that's a P&S issue. This season would be considered normal service resuming again hence why Reading may well face a deduction.

From the Wigan appeal- includes the odd paragraph plus the relevant Regs...

"solely". Any other factors involved and it surely has to fail?

"All due diligence"- that's quite a broad term although legally more common seems to be "all reasonable endeavours". That's slightly odd wording for regulations of this kind. In fact the EFL's wording throughout the piece for their Force Majeure Regs is slightly odd. Due diligence is more about takeovers, mergers and acquisitions etc surely. Could they have not signed players, sold a player more or 2? Possibly. There is a piece albeit under NZ law that suggests that all due diligence is basically akin to best endeavours- could under English law, all due diligence be considered equivalent to all reasonable endeavours?

I still think that external funding collapsing would be a reasonable argument- the owner who isn't bankrupt not continuing, not so much. If it's the same panel, I don't see how they can come to a different interpretation.

Paragraphs 65-69.

"Truly external to the club"- despite claims of sustainability, had they been actually sustainable then they wouldn't have had to go into administration when Mel Morris pulled the plug would they.

74-79 also build on this and as I've said before, owner funding running out or stopping is considered a normal business risk in this context.

Not sure about the EFL's definition once again though- as I've said before a major sponsor collapsing as a result of Covid maybe a better bet. Something unique to the club maybe?

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

I don't believe Mel Morris literally was unable to fund Derby to the end of this season, financially speaking. Therefore it feels like they are trying it on somewhat! Even then, the Panel suggested an owners fortune collapsing again a normal business risk.

The owner putting £X in is funding not income, or was the case for Wigan so should be for Derby.

A major sponsor collapsing is a collapse in income, the owner ceasing or running out of giving cash to the club, is a collapse in funding.

What's your take @Hxj on the 'optimistic' scenario that:

• -12 overturned
• New owner in and allowed to strengthen in Jan...
• ...Even allowed to do so with no resolution of the P&S issue and the outstanding embargo reasons not yet resolved?
• Also seen suggested that -4 max and then allowed to strengthen- small matter of multiple outstanding seasons and a business plan to be agreed?

Surely the EFL wouldn't allow this- wouldn't allow one without the other. They had their additions within parameters in the summer, surely no more until P&S sanctions finalised. Tad 'optimistic' no!

Edited November 4, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

47 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What's your take @Hxj on the 'optimistic' scenario that:

• -12 overturned
• New owner in and allowed to strengthen in Jan...
• ...Even allowed to do so with no resolution of the P&S issue and the outstanding embargo reasons not yet resolved?

Surely the EFL wouldn't allow this- wouldn't allow one without the other. They had their additions within parameters in the summer, surely no more until P&S sanctions finalised.

All we can do is sit and wait and see what happens.

However I only assume that the EFL will follow their rules and that until paperwork is submitted and a full and final settlement is reached with Derby (including a comprehensive business plan) they will be bound by the current soft and hard embargos.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

All we can do is sit and wait and see what happens.

However I only assume that the EFL will follow their rules and that until paperwork is submitted and a full and final settlement is reached with Derby (including a comprehensive business plan) they will be bound by the current soft and hard embargos.

 

Thanks, that makes sense.

Yeah all things being equal, the EFL should quite simply be upholding their regulations. They have been and should continue to do so.

Doesn't stop some Derby fans whinging about how disgraceful the EFL are though, bless!

Wonder what their proposed solution is.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The other thing too.

Going into administration is not supposed to be done lightly.

In addition to the - 12, the Business Plan is supposed IMO to provide a level of deterrence. An element of moral hazard.

People who can ill afford it will get, have been screwed over in the process.

Therefore I find some of their fans takes to be unusual. It's not supposed to be easy, a relatively swift return to something approaching business as usual.

You wipe a hefty chunk of unsecured debt but it comes with a hefty price tag.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

A read of the most recent page is quite interesting and at times amusing.

Most who complain about the EFL neglect to mention the democratic nature of it. One sort of goes that way but then makes references in so doing to 'The Gibson faction'. Another seemed to think they should be put in charge of Uganda or similar!?

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38482-derby-to-fight-12-point-deduction-according-to-nixon/page/72/#comments

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Morris was trying to bypass FFP , risked all to get to the Prem , then tried to sell and minimise his liabilities. No one came forward as no one wanted to pay him back his loans. So instead he stops funding to minimise his losses. That is how I see it. Derby fans have only him to blame not the EFL. How much did the Bolton ex owner (no longer alive) write off in loans to the club to help it survive ? Morris will have to do the same. But he did create that debt and was knowingly doing everything to bypass regulations . 

Hey this could easily happen to us and many other clubs if the owner pulls the plug. 

Makes the Swindon relegation seem incredible in the context of what we see here , and the huge Derby  HMRC debts . 

Eddie Davis - £170m I think.

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A read of the most recent page is quite interesting and at times amusing.

Most who complain about the EFL neglect to mention the democratic nature of it. One sort of goes that way but then makes references in so doing to 'The Gibson faction'. Another seemed to think they should be put in charge of Uganda or similar!?

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38482-derby-to-fight-12-point-deduction-according-to-nixon/page/72/#comments

A few speaking sense on there though. Rightly saying that Covid was merely a contributing factor to the Admin, and far from the sole cause.

Although the one lad trying to compare them to Wigan seems a little confused.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I'm glad you mentioned the HMRC debt @billywedlock

£20-28m are estimates based on media reports yet it has slipped off the radar somewhat. Seen it stated in the past that it is a record HMRC debt for football clubs who have gone into admimistration.

I expect that HMRC will take a big haircut. Seen a few on their forum in recent times saying they would rather it went to the club, ie the club are more important than HMRC etc.

Of late, they have speculated more about whether they can sign players/strengthen in January than about HMRC.

Truly they as a club and fanbase deserve a fairly hard landing.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

44 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

I would hope the HMRC debt is included in liabilities to settle before the club goes anywhere near signing players again. How HMRC allowed it to get that bad is hard to work out. They don't normally mess about. Probably a mix of VAT and employment costs. After the Rangers situation, HMRC will not be an easy roll over

HMRC made clear on 12 June that it would vote against a proposed Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).^[56] Their formal rejection of the proposed CVA on 14 June meant that Rangers would be liquidated,^[57] while the club would have to be reformed within a new company structure.^[58] The business and assets of Rangers were sold to Sevco Scotland Ltd, with the accountancy firm BDO due to be appointed as liquidator.^[59] Duff & Phelps announced in October 2012 that creditors had approved an end to their administration and that they had applied to the Court of Session for BDO to be appointed as liquidator.^[60] This appointment was legally approved on 31 October.

This will be a really interesting case, I agree in principle with you btw. A strict embargo seems only fair in these circs.

This is perhaps the highest profile case of its kind post the restoration of Crown Preference. HMRC also need all the tax they can get post Covid.

However on the other hand, does Derbyshire not fall within the Red Wall geographically? Not hard to envisage a lot of MPs in that county grumbling, raising questions. Asking how Derby County going to the wall fits with 'levelling up'.

Time to pay? Another possibility.

One bit that's a bit random and that has gone under the radar a tad. Mel Morris donated to the Tories in 2017. Just once as far as I can see- think that the MP in q was Patrick McLoughlin, never seen it reported anywhere however.

I say MP, he's now in the House of Lords.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

I'm not sure HMRC can treat a football club different to any business in administration. So I assume the HMRC liabilities will have to be paid if the company is to continue as the an existing entity. Hence Rangers, and HMRC forced them into insolvency and they had to reapply to the league to come back as a New Co. HMRC cannot be seen to be funding Mel Morris and his deception . I would have to believe any incoming money will have to clear that debt. The precedence would be fateful if not. 

Once again, I agree with the bulk of your post. Would set a terrible precedent as you say. Although Rangers still got off lightly in some ways but there was a report in October, that said Derby's administrators were looking to negotiate the HMRC debt down by millions.

MPs would certainly lobby or complain I'm sure. One has already been moaning a bit about the EFL.

One example to consider was Portsmouth in 2010. I don't know how the Insolvency works exactly now but then it was the case that if HMRC's debt made up 25% of the total debt then their vote could block a CVA. Possible insolvency as you say.

However, worth noting that the administrators reclassified a chunk of that HMRC debt. Something about disputed amounts, image rights and about £13m was lopped off the HMRC pile, their share was now under 25%.

Court ruled in Portsmouth's favour, HMRC no longer could block.

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/jun/08/hmrc-portsmouth-reject-offer

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff7d660d03e7f57eb2630

[Mr Popodopolous]

Optimism is growing among Derby fans about their force majeure appeal however.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/38482-derby-to-fight-12-point-deduction-according-to-nixon/?do=findComment&comment=2227552

The reasonable steps argument gets an airing. Because to sign Marshall, Byrne and Jozwiak- the latter was £4m, in the summer of 2020 was okay in the circs as there were no reasonable expectations that Covid would lock fans out all season.

Also to sell Buchanan and Lawrence in summer 2021 wouldn't have stopped administration so...

I don't know they're so slimy aren't they. Fans, club, hierarchy past and present. The lot really.

That said, I rate that poster. Although I do believe that they said sometime early in the summer that Derby wouldn't be under an Embargo even.

Professional standing, did they mention that in their predictions?

Edited November 5, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Optimism is growing among Derby fans

mmmm - I would have more confidence in their arguments if:

1.  They discussed 'solely';

2.  They discussed the HMRC winding up petition in January 2020 and the proximity of the Administration to HMRC recommencing winding up petitions on 1 October 2021.

3.  They could also tell me what happened to the £75 million odd owed to the football club for the ground.

As seen in the Rangers and Portsmouth court cases HMRC do fight their corner consistently in respect of voting against cases where 'special rules' like the Football Creditors rule applies.

Therefore there is every chance that HMRC will vote in the same way again, which could mean that The Derby County Football Club Limited may not be able to leave Administration and would therefore enter Liquidation.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Hxj

[Hxj]

On related issues the Rams Investment Limited/Gabay Charge against the Stadium Group has been repaid in full.

A new charge against the Stadium Group has been put in place from MSD.  Two possibilities, more funds have been borrowed from MSD solely secured against the Stadium Group, alternatively it is part of a clean up for disposal as the previous charge against the Stadium Group and Football Group has been called in.  Personally I suspect the latter.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Thanks for the summary. Find particularly interesting the relative lack of analysis over there of the sole cause etc bit.

Seen some slightly confusing takes which were along the lines of "if not for Covid we wouldn't be in administration but too complex to put it down to one cause".

HMRC bit is a proper interesting test case. Wonder how it is comprised, the HMRC debt. Certain aspects are now preferential after all.

I saw  that too the MSD bit. Didn't get round to posting.

The explanations I've seen from the Derby end are:

1) A further loan taken out to fund the club perhaps until January. By Mel to the club. Twitter IIRC.

2) A tidying up exercise in order to take the Derby group companies off the hook for it, ie the 6 in administration.

Very nice of MSD and Mel!

PistoldPete on dcfcfans.uk seems to be the source of the latter.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous