Derby County

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Thanks, very informative as usual.

I'm still puzzled as to what EFL rules and regulations (P&S or otherwise) the claims are founded on. Any "debt" to Boro and Wycombe is hypothetical unless and until some competent authority (the EFL or the courts) says otherwise.

I also doubt the EFL would take a line that would increase the risk of Derby being liquidated, unless of course there really is a conspiracy against them.

Playing devils advocate, they shouldn’t favour Derby over 2 other members either.

[CyderInACan]

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

They are burning cash at around a £1 million a month

Yet we’re burning it at £400,000 a week! 

[chinapig]

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Playing devils advocate, they shouldn’t favour Derby over 2 other members either.

Agreed, IF the 2 clubs concerned have a sustainable case.

[Hxj]

52 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm still puzzled as to what EFL rules and regulations (P&S or otherwise) the claims are founded on.

There is no specific regulation covering what is or is not a 'dispute' between the parties.

Regulation 95 states - available here - EFL Official Website - Section 9 – Arbitration:

Section 9 – Arbitration
95           Agreement to Arbitrate

95.1        Membership of The League shall constitute an agreement in writing between The League and Clubs and between each Club for the purposes of section 5 of the Arbitration Act:

95.1.1    to submit those disputes described out in Regulation 95.2 to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act and this Section of these Regulations;

95.1.2    that the seat of each such arbitration shall be in England and Wales;

95.1.3    that the issues in each such arbitration shall be decided in accordance with English law;

95.1.4    that no other system or mode of arbitration (including arbitration under Football Association Rules) will be invoked to resolve any such dispute.

95.2        The following disputes fall to be resolved under this Section of the Regulations:

95.2.1    subject to Regulation 95.3 below, disputes arising from a decision of The League or the Board (‘Board Disputes’);

95.2.2    Disciplinary Appeals;

95.2.3    ‘Force Majeure’ appeals pursuant to Regulation 12.3 (Sporting Sanction Appeal);

95.2.4    applications pursuant to Rule 6 of Appendix 3 (Appeal Application and/or Review Applications under the Owners’ and Directors’ Test);

95.2.5    other disputes between The League and Clubs and between each Club arising from these Regulations or otherwise (‘Other Disputes’), unless such disputes were dealt with by way of the following proceedings:

(a)           a Player Related Dispute Commission (or subsequent appeal to the League Appeals Committee (if any)); or

(b)           proceedings before the Professional Football Compensation Committee;

as the decisions of those bodies themselves are deemed to be final with no subsequent right of appeal or challenge.

There is clearly a dispute between the clubs arising 'otherwise' from the Regulations.  Despite that it has to go through the required procedures.  There are no provisions to enable the EFL to get involved until the Panel is set up, they can try and get involved if they so desire at that point as an 'interested party' (as Middlesbrough did in the Derby case).  I can't find the reference, but any amount ordered to be paid by the Panel is a 'Football Creditor'.

 

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

Any "debt" to Boro and Wycombe is hypothetical

But the 'dispute' is real.  Where, potentially £50 million, is involved then I would act with caution if I was the EFL.

 

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

I also doubt the EFL would take a line that would increase the risk of Derby being liquidated

This really is outside the EFL's control.

Then you have the complications of borrowing money to pay your bills.

Then you have the complications of HMRC.

And it goes on.

 

 

[chinapig]

9 minutes ago, Hxj said:

There is no specific regulation covering what is or is not a 'dispute' between the parties.

Regulation 95 states - available here - EFL Official Website - Section 9 – Arbitration:

Section 9 – Arbitration
95           Agreement to Arbitrate

95.1        Membership of The League shall constitute an agreement in writing between The League and Clubs and between each Club for the purposes of section 5 of the Arbitration Act:

95.1.1    to submit those disputes described out in Regulation 95.2 to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act and this Section of these Regulations;

95.1.2    that the seat of each such arbitration shall be in England and Wales;

95.1.3    that the issues in each such arbitration shall be decided in accordance with English law;

95.1.4    that no other system or mode of arbitration (including arbitration under Football Association Rules) will be invoked to resolve any such dispute.

95.2        The following disputes fall to be resolved under this Section of the Regulations:

95.2.1    subject to Regulation 95.3 below, disputes arising from a decision of The League or the Board (‘Board Disputes’);

95.2.2    Disciplinary Appeals;

95.2.3    ‘Force Majeure’ appeals pursuant to Regulation 12.3 (Sporting Sanction Appeal);

95.2.4    applications pursuant to Rule 6 of Appendix 3 (Appeal Application and/or Review Applications under the Owners’ and Directors’ Test);

95.2.5    other disputes between The League and Clubs and between each Club arising from these Regulations or otherwise (‘Other Disputes’), unless such disputes were dealt with by way of the following proceedings:

(a)           a Player Related Dispute Commission (or subsequent appeal to the League Appeals Committee (if any)); or

(b)           proceedings before the Professional Football Compensation Committee;

as the decisions of those bodies themselves are deemed to be final with no subsequent right of appeal or challenge.

There is clearly a dispute between the clubs arising 'otherwise' from the Regulations.  Despite that it has to go through the required procedures.  There are no provisions to enable the EFL to get involved until the Panel is set up, they can try and get involved if they so desire at that point as an 'interested party' (as Middlesbrough did in the Derby case).  I can't find the reference, but any amount ordered to be paid by the Panel is a 'Football Creditor'.

 

But the 'dispute' is real.  Where, potentially £50 million, is involved then I would act with caution if I was the EFL.

 

This really is outside the EFL's control.

Then you have the complications of borrowing money to pay your bills.

Then you have the complications of HMRC.

And it goes on.

 

 

Thanks, that is extremely helpful. I suppose a more accurate way of putting it is therefore that the EFL would want the 2 clubs defined as football creditors IF the claims are found in their favour.

The EFL has a dilemma. On the one hand Parry wants them to be seen to enforce the rules rigorously. On the other they would not want such a high profile club to go to the wall. Rather them than me!

Odds are that if Rooney says it's all the EFL's fault that's what most of the football media will report as anything else would require actual research. Why do that when you could be writing about what Ronaldo has said on social media and getting lots of clicks?

[Hxj]

7 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I suppose a more accurate way of putting it is therefore that the EFL would want the 2 clubs defined as football creditors IF the claims are found in their favour.

I would prefer - "I suppose a more accurate way of putting it is therefore that the 2 clubs will be football creditors IF the claims are found in their favour."

[Davefevs]

Seemed to be getting messy.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Seemed to be getting messy.

 

Thanks Dave. Did wonder how Derby turning down bids while in administration, combined with Rooney talking periodically about new signings would go down. The article by Percy below, not behind paywall.

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/derby-set-row-efl-turning-184106197.html

A problem for Derby is that they as a club, well Mel mainly but by no means only him have burnt through goodwill at a major rate- and I would include a chunk of their fans in this regard.

In their situation it really isn't a good idea but seems that their behaviour patterns continue.

It seems unusual to say the least for a club in administration, let alone with a debt pile such as theirs, no accounts released for approaching 3 years to the public, with restated accounts ie restated accounts that have been audited to be submitted to their Governing body covering God knows how long to be outwardly and publicly rejecting bids for players!? These are due with the EFL by 5pm in 3 weeks time IIRC.

Isn't their deferred instalment for Bielik due this month too, Jozwiak also in February I believe.

[ExiledAjax]

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Seemed to be getting messy.

 

Just on the transfer thing, to my mind there isn't an obligation on the administrators to accept any old offer. I said before, I think that if it's a genuine market value offer, for a player who is not crucial to the ability of the Club to field a matchday squad, then they can probably reject it without failing their duties. Right now Quantuma have a reasonable argument that by rejecting offers made now in the hope of receiving a higher one later in the window, they are actually acting more in the interests of creditors. Especially when you consider that whilst the over-riding duty is to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole, they have a duty as well to get the best price for an asset that they can.

There is a clock ticking on that though. The first is getting a deal done that satisfies creditors. IIRC from one of @Hxj's earlier post, this would realistically need to be agreed by this week if they are to hold the final creditor's meeting before the end of the transfer window and so escape administration before the second crunch comes.

If they are still in administration in those last few days of January, well then it's very hard for Quantuma to keep rejecting offers on the basis that 'we might get a better price'. There I suspect they are hoping that the team can get enough points this month (a maximum of 9 available) that they can argue to retain players because staying up is realistic (it isn't) and so it's actually in the longer term interest to keep better players and stay up. This second argument is very, very flimsy and although it might be made, I personally think it's bollocks.

I wonder if creditors might also start to put pressure on the Admins to sell if no big sales have happened and maybe the vultures clubs start to publically state what they are offering?

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

These are due with the EFL by 5pm in 3 weeks time IIRC.

Deadline is 16:00 on 31 January.

[Davefevs]

FWIW, I think Rooney should be keeping his gob shut, but I guess he’s playing a bit of a game too, which I don’t blame him for doing.

Do you wonder if we are one of the clubs bidding….LB Buchanan would solve some problems, especially on a “cheeky” (not ridiculous) bid?  Nige would know of both of them?  Forest appear to be after Buchanan, although they already have Max Lowe.

[Hxj]

The more I look at this the harder it is to see a solution.

There are too many issues to be solved and little time to do it in.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I suppose what @ExiledAjaxsays is true, no obligation on Derby/Quantuma to accept derisory bids as can argue in best interest of creditors not to etc. At the same time though, can see other clubs definitely lodging complaints over it as appears to be the case.

15 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Do you wonder if we are one of the clubs bidding….LB Buchanan would solve some problems, especially on a “cheeky” (not ridiculous) bid?  Nige would know of both of them?  Forest appear to be after Buchanan, although they already have Max Lowe.

Possible! Nottingham Forest also known to have a keen interest. Still think DaSilva has attributes and time on his side but that's a different debate.

It mentioned Millwall bidding for Sibley in the article IIRC!? Surprising, think he is destined for bigger things with respect to Millwall etc.

5 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The more I look at this the harder it is to see a solution.

There are too many issues to be solved and little time to do it in.

If Derby miss the 4pm 31st January deadline for accounts to the EFL, do you think further trouble may follow?

[REDOXO]

2 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The more I look at this the harder it is to see a solution.

There are too many issues to be solved and little time to do it in.

That’s the way it seems to me. I will assume Mike Ashley and Gibbo are at least somewhat acquainted for obvious reasons as it appears Mr Gibson is pissed of enough to make him think twice and that’s before the Wycombe bloke gets really stuck in. 
 

Im getting worried for Derby

Edit: I’m not really! The supporters don’t deserve this but some of the drivel I have read and heard from them is mind boggling. I’m still trying to get my head around the forever Bristol City guest! Did he get that you can’t take back a recording. Bloody nonsense! 

[Hxj]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If Derby miss the 4pm 31st January deadline for accounts to the EFL, do you think further trouble may follow?

Undoubtedly but in the current scheme of things it won’t make much difference - I simply can’t see a solution where Derby County survive.  

[ExiledAjax]

55 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I suppose what @ExiledAjaxsays is true, no obligation on Derby/Quantuma to accept derisory bids as can argue in best interest of creditors not to etc. At the same time though, can see other clubs definitely lodging complaints over it as appears to be the case.

To clarify, I think it would be fine to reject reasonable market value offers as well. An offer doesn't need to be derisory to justify rejection (at this stage of the window).

It's a smart tactic from prospective purchasers to put the EFL and national press on notice about these offers. That puts public pressure on  Quantuma to eventually accept some sort of offer.

All fair in love and war.

Edited January 10, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

To clarify, I think it would be fine to reject reasonable market value offers as well. An offer doesn't need to be derisory to justify rejection (at this stage of the window).

It's a smart tactic from prospective purchasers to put the EFL and national press on notice about these offers. That puts public pressure on  Quantuma to eventually accept some sort of offer.

All fair in love and war.

Yep, is it any different to a big club offering a lesser club’s player a high wage to unsettle him?  Derby are in a weak position, people will take advantage…and rightly so.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

Undoubtedly but in the current scheme of things it won’t make much difference - I simply can’t see a solution where Derby County survive.  

Agree that further backsliding should lead to further measures, though not so sure that when push comes to shove they will go pop- I can imagine local MPs lobbying for some kind of if not reduction then say 25 year repayment plan type thing- that's a number I've seen suggested on Twitter, 25 years to get it all repaid.

As to the June orders- updated of course- the issue seems to have totally fallen off the agenda, hopefully the EFL still have their eye on the ball however.

26.1 and 26.2 i) and ii)

That is therefore 3 years if not 5 of restated accounts to the EFL by the end of the month and then last seasons accounts to the EFL and published on their site if still in administration or generally published, about 2 months later- presumably they'll be expected to file the P&S submissions for 2021/22 on time as well.

Wonder if the accounts will show the rental part of the stadium transaction- hopefully something the EFL still have in mind.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

Firstly the latest update from the Supporters trust is in very long, in short it says:

There are no material changes in the situation since our last meeting.

They also now don't rule out sales and are suggesting that the 'Preferred Bidder' is being asked to part fund the club.  Neither are good signs for the club.

 

[chinapig]

7 hours ago, Hxj said:

Firstly the latest update from the Supporters trust is in very long, in short it says:

There are no material changes in the situation since our last meeting.

They also now don't rule out sales and are suggesting that the 'Preferred Bidder' is being asked to part fund the club.  Neither are good signs for the club.

 

They seem to be getting excited that Bristol Street Motors has become an "official partner" (sponsor in plain English). I'm not sure that means the end of their troubles though.

Edited January 11, 2022 by chinapig

[ExiledAjax]

15 minutes ago, chinapig said:

They seem to be getting excited that Bristol Street Motors has become an "official partner" (sponsor in plain English). I'm not sure that means the end of their troubles though.

And that their game with Hull is now on Sky, apparently that nets them 100 grand and has allowed them to reject bids for Buchanan...so many straws being clutched by so many people.

Edited January 11, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Davefevs]

Not sure if this is old news or not?

I like Kirchner’s style in a weird way!

[ExiledAjax]

40 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Not sure if this is old news or not?

I like Kirchner’s style in a weird way!

Interesting, I guess it shows the complexity here. No one wants to stump up money for a basket case club, pay off all that HMRC debt (even if over a number of years), take on the risk of paying Boro and Wycombe money...and then still pay rent to the bloke who cocked it all up in the first place. So the stadium needs to form part of the packet. But that means that Morris still has the final say on a deal, or at least a hell of a lot of influence. Quantuma don't have power to compel him to sell just because they've got a good deal for the creditors.

1 minute ago, billywedlock said:

Morris is the only person taking you to liquidation . Yet he will sit back on millions .

This is it isn't it. It's not "Gibbo", bad administrators, time wasting Yanks, or even famed insolvency expert Wayne Rooney who are delaying things. It's Morris, the same guy who tore the structure of their club apart, saddled everything with debt, and employed bad accounting practices to finally seal the deal.

[Davefevs]

Should Derby be liquidated and their record this season be expunged, there are a few others in the bottom half who’d lose their 3 points likes us.

 

we’d still be well clear of Peterborough in the highest relegation spot, although we would drop to 16th.

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Not sure if this is old news or not?

I like Kirchner’s style in a weird way!

Trouble is Administrations don't work like that.  MSD have security against all the assets of all the companies both in the 'Football Group' and the 'Stadium Group'.

So if MSD are owed £20 million and Kirchner pays £20 million to buy the Stadium company from the immediate parent and that money is used to repay the MSD loan then MSD cannot recover the debt in the Administration.

If Kirchner paid £1 million in the same way and with the same outcome, MSD would be entitled to the first £19 million of cash available for distribution in the Administration as the secured creditor.

Morris only loses out if he has a personal guarantee in respect of the loan and less than £20 million is received by MSD from all sources.  There's no evidence that Morris has a personal guarantee, a lot of another forum think that he owns the stadium personally, he doesn't.  He owns the company which owns the company which owns the stadium.

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

They seem to be getting excited that Bristol Street Motors has become an "official partner"

Maybe they are looking for a nice brownfield site to consolidate all their local dealerships into?

[Davefevs]

42 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Trouble is Administrations don't work like that.  MSD have security against all the assets of all the companies both in the 'Football Group' and the 'Stadium Group'.

So if MSD are owed £20 million and Kirchner pays £20 million to buy the Stadium company from the immediate parent and that money is used to repay the MSD loan then MSD cannot recover the debt in the Administration.

If Kirchner paid £1 million in the same way and with the same outcome, MSD would be entitled to the first £19 million of cash available for distribution in the Administration as the secured creditor.

Morris only loses out if he has a personal guarantee in respect of the loan and less than £20 million is received by MSD from all sources.  There's no evidence that Morris has a personal guarantee, a lot of another forum think that he owns the stadium personally, he doesn't.  He owns the company which owns the company which owns the stadium.

Is that why MSD did what they did then?

[Hxj]

MSD run a very

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Is that why MSD did what they did then?

Yep.

Tie the security down hard.  If the client pays you get paid, if the client doesn't pay you get paid.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting bit by Simon Jordan today.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-simon-jordan-middlesbrough-6474071

Speaks if a feeling that - 21 isn't enough among other EFL clubs as Derby (like everyone else in a sense I presume) took advantage of the exemptions and allowances during Covid for tax etc- and then went into administration as we were approaching a return to more normal business conditions entered administration!

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting bit by Simon Jordan today.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-simon-jordan-middlesbrough-6474071

Speaks if a feeling that - 21 isn't enough among other EFL clubs as Derby (like everyone else in a sense I presume) took advantage of the exemptions and allowances during Covid for tax etc- and then went into administration as we were approaching a return to more normal business conditions entered administration!

Yes, interesting view isn’t it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, interesting view isn’t it.

It is. Not one that I'd given much thought to but the Clubs who have done, are doing the right thing even if delayed due to Covid would rightly be aggrieved. Think he might be conflating two issues a bit though.

Would also add, I am surprised that the claims are still live tbh. Assumed that they might be using it as leverage to keep the pressure on the EFL to uphold their position on administration and P&S breaches.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Might ask @ExiledAjax and @Hxj

As per Jim Wheeler of RamsTrust, Derby or Derbyshire council unsure which would never permit a change of use. Does this in some ways make the security for MSD null and void? It's not a surprise that the council would take such a stance in any case IMO.

Would try to find the quotes etc.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The Simon Jordan bit I assume- did a bit of searching myself and about to listen but seems to be 17:00 onwards on this section.

https://talksport.com/radio/listen-again/1641895200/1641900600/

Found a nice little Tweet from Mike Thornton around the time of points deduction- few may remember him, he posted some very informative FFP stuff when Leeds were at this level.

Had they taken the hit in 2021/22, could the outcome have been better? Wycombe wouldn't be pushing any kind of claim for one.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Out of edit time but obvs mean 2020/21. Derby drop, no objections by Couhig and probably the EFL and other clubs hackles a lot less raised as well.

[Davefevs]

Mike posted some very good stuff on Villa at the time too.

[Hxj]

11 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As per Jim Wheeler of RamsTrust, Derby or Derbyshire council unsure which would never permit a change of use. Does this in some ways make the security for MSD null and void?

Assuming any proposed use required a planning application, any refusal to grant can be appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, so any statement by the local council is irrelevant.  It would also be potential grounds for a Judicial Review on the basis that the local authority have prejudged the issue without any regards to the facts of any proposal.

 

[Davefevs]

 

[HappyClapper]

59 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

Not a great deal of sympathy from twitter. 

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, HappyClapper said:

Not a great deal of sympathy from twitter. 

And there won't be much sympathy from DCFCfans either.  Dangerous stuff admitting that Derby broke FFP!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Their fans did pay off St John's Ambulance I believe so credit where it is due for that- and I say that as one of Derby's harsher critics let's say.

Credit to the FANS not the CLUB that is.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[exAtyeoMax]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

 

a bit heavy on the emotional blackmail regarding Wycombe and Boro.

[ExiledAjax]

Famed insolvency practitioner and part-time football manager Wayne Rooney has again faced the press ahead of Derby's match against Sheffield United. 

News tomorrow apparently.

[BTRFTG]

On 12/01/2022 at 10:17, Hxj said:

Assuming any proposed use required a planning application, any refusal to grant can be appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, so any statement by the local council is irrelevant.  It would also be potential grounds for a Judicial Review on the basis that the local authority have prejudged the issue without any regards to the facts of any proposal.

 

One imagines the existing Use Case consent to be Sui Generis ( football, training, medical, conference, admin, educational, entertainment, retail et al.) In which case that expires once application is made (essentially saying the infrastructure no longer matches the existing Use Case consent.)

For those implying change might be to B2/8, C3 etc then there could be a big impairment in value in respect of CIL & S106. Whilst Derby Council could 'help out' by dropping S106 fees, CIl is fixed.

[Bristol Rob]

8 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Famed insolvency practitioner and part-time football manager Wayne Rooney has again faced the press ahead of Derby's match against Sheffield United. 

News tomorrow apparently.

Rooney will end up being the owner.

He is waiting for Rebecca Vardy to break the news to him.

[Davefevs]

Got to hand it to some of you, your knowledge of this stuff is amazing.

[Hxj]

With the cash due to run out before the end of January, is this 'The beginning of the end'?

 

[Bristol Rob]

1 minute ago, Hxj said:

With the cash due to run out before the end of January, is this 'The beginning of the end'?

 

Doubt it.

Whilst their situation is pretty bleak, I just can't see a club like Derby going under.

[Hxj]

3 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I just can't see a club like Derby going under

I can. 

There's a long list of companies who were too big to fail but did.

Almost 4 months into the Administration and no obvious real progress.

[Davefevs]

26 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Doubt it.

Whilst their situation is pretty bleak, I just can't see a club like Derby going under.

I can too @Hxj

Saw this earlier.

 

[Sir Geoff]

On 11/01/2022 at 20:16, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting bit by Simon Jordan today.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-simon-jordan-middlesbrough-6474071

Speaks if a feeling that - 21 isn't enough among other EFL clubs as Derby (like everyone else in a sense I presume) took advantage of the exemptions and allowances during Covid for tax etc- and then went into administration as we were approaching a return to more normal business conditions entered administration!

Only just read this but worth remembering that SJ is good friends of one the administrators. I guess he is acting as an unofficial  ' mouthpiece'  for them.

[Davefevs]

 

[Davefevs]

 

[Hxj]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

Sadly that's nail number two in the coffin.  He's done very well for Derby this season.

 

[ExiledAjax]

44 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Presumably Derby/Admins failed to prove to the EFL that they have the funds to see out the season whilst also extending Jagielka. 

As we discussed months ago as the thin squad gets thinner so relegation looms larger.

[Davefevs]

 

43 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Presumably Derby/Admins failed to prove to the EFL that they have the funds to see out the season whilst also extending Jagielka. 

As we discussed months ago as the thin squad gets thinner so relegation looms larger.

Some people still don’t get it to they?  The EFL are applying the rules.

Re player sales (not contract extensions), I can see why a couple of teams put in low bids, because they can see good possibility that Derby will get wound up, player contracts become null and void, and the players become available outside of the window for zilch…so why not try a silly offer now.  When Bury went under, their players were allowed to register outside the window.

[Bristol Rob]

 

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

 

Was waiting for this event.  They are on their arse.

[ExiledAjax]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Was waiting for this event.  They are on their arse.

Same. Quantuma update later today apparently, can't imagine it's going to be particularly good.

Wonder what famed insolvency practitioner Wayne Rooney is thinking now? Could he be next to leave? Should be able to get himself a nice job at Quantuma given his extensive knowledge of restructuring and insolvency practice.

Edited January 14, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Midred]

17 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

 

Wayne being kept out of the loop?

[ExiledAjax]

41 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Some people still don’t get it to they?  The EFL are applying the rules.

A speculation post.

I suspect what has happened is that Quantuma have interpreted the EFL's budget in one manner, and had decided yesterday that they could satisfy it for the season. They told Rooney this, and began sorting out extensions for the likes of Jagielka.

They've popped down to EFL HQ yesterday and the EFL have looked over the budget, and told them that actually X should include A and B, or that Z can't actually be excluded. These things mean that the budget Quantuma drew up is wrong.

Quantuma then have to go back and say that actually Jags has to go, oh and also we need to sell some players asap unless you want us liquidated now.

As for any bidders - those bids were probably made on the basis that the EFL would approve the budget for the remainder of the season, so they will need to be revised as well.

So whilst I expect that yes, the EFL are 'applying the rules', they may be applying them in a way that is slightly different to how Quantuma expect they might be applied - or even have even been previously told they would be applied.

All just cock ups of communication and the like, but I've seen it happen with clients and regulators (for the purposes of this sentence the EFL is a 'regulator') more often than you'd believe.

I have personally had one employee of Companies House tell me one procedure is correct, I followed that procedure, then a week later went back to Companies House and spoke to a different employee (the first was now on holiday) who told me there were some other steps that were required. That was a shitty chat with my boss and generally a crap day for me, and all because CH 'moved the goalposts'.

[Bristol Rob]

28 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Was waiting for this event.  They are on their arse.

Wonder if it was renew on limited terms, or renew on the same terms, or was it a case of well, we can't renew you because we have no money. And worse than that, we are now under a new embargo.

Guess Ashley is watching this play out and lowering his offer by the minute.

[Davefevs]

BBC article, suggesting trying to broker a deal with Boro and Wycombe, whilst also saying HMRC are gonna give up £20m of the £28m owed.  Is that really true, or just how a “payment plan” might work?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59995698

[Hxj]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Is that really true, or just how a “payment plan” might work?

Sounds like a load of baloney to me.  Just doesn't sound right.

However even those figures, and paying off MSD, will require someone to put in at least £40 million, probably a lot more.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Hxj

[Hxj]

Just been confirmed on the Derby Official Site that Jagielka has left.

[Monkeh]

I dont think Derby County will exist by the end of the month,

 

[PHILINFRANCE]

Hi Mel.

EFL got Derby on strings! 

[ExiledAjax]

@Davefevs @Hxj @Mr Popodopolous

Not sure how much to believe the below post from DCFC Forum. Tallies a little with what I said earlier, that Quantuma thought they fitted into the budget, and the EFL brought new items in.

Personally, I am surprised that Derby/Quantuma cannot source some insurance to cover the Wycombe and Boro claims. Maybe currently they can't, but if it's such a stumbling block then any bidder should be asked to pay for some insurance to cover the possibility of those claims being successful. If they are as confident as they say they are that the claims would fail, then surely paying a couple of million in an insurance premium is worth it. Litigation insurance isn't my expertise, but I recall previous clients obtaining this kind of thing when in insolvency.

[Monkeh]

6 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

@Davefevs @Hxj @Mr Popodopolous

Not sure how much to believe the below post from DCFC Forum. Tallies a little with what I said earlier, that Quantuma thought they fitted into the budget, and the EFL brought new items in.

Personally, I am surprised that Derby/Quantuma cannot source some insurance to cover the Wycombe and Boro claims. Maybe currently they can't, but if it's such a stumbling block then any bidder should be asked to pay for some insurance to cover the possibility of those claims being successful. If they are as confident as they say they are that the claims would fail, then surely paying a couple of million in an insurance premium is worth it. Litigation insurance isn't my expertise, but I recall previous clients obtaining this kind of thing when in insolvency.

That post I think is fan fiction and just follows the narrative that the efl have it in for Derby and its all one big conspiracy theory,

It isn't 

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

@Davefevs @Hxj @Mr Popodopolous

Not sure how much to believe the below post from DCFC Forum. Tallies a little with what I said earlier, that Quantuma thought they fitted into the budget, and the EFL brought new items in.

Personally, I am surprised that Derby/Quantuma cannot source some insurance to cover the Wycombe and Boro claims. Maybe currently they can't, but if it's such a stumbling block then any bidder should be asked to pay for some insurance to cover the possibility of those claims being successful. If they are as confident as they say they are that the claims would fail, then surely paying a couple of million in an insurance premium is worth it. Litigation insurance isn't my expertise, but I recall previous clients obtaining this kind of thing when in insolvency.

Interesting!

I guess one view is - you (MM’s Derby) took the piss in the first place, then MM placed you into Admin when he could’ve continued to fund it….we are getting our own back!

Im sure it’s not anywhere near as black and white as I make it above, but it shows how maintaining a good relationship can be key, Derby have not played ball at any point.

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

That post I think is fan fiction and just follows the narrative that the efl have it in for Derby and its all one big conspiracy theory,

It isn't 

Yeh, this guy could easily be one of the less reliable posters on Derby's forum. 

[Monkeh]

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Yeh, this guy could easily be one of the less reliable posters on Derby's forum. 

Indeed where it falls down is the fact they owe money to the Crown,