Derby County

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

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

No doubt a problem yes, but Derby/Quantuma are more likely to get a payment plan out of HMRC than out of Boro or Wycombe. Also, the HMRC debt is a known and fixed quantity, so bidders have certainty over the debt they are taking on, and how it will be settled.

On the other hand, whilst Boro and Wycombe's claims may be for a certain sum, there's no guarantee regarding the costs for defending them, or the time it takes, or what might eventually be ordered as payment. It's that uncertainty that, in my opinion, makes those claims the bigger problem.

[Monkeh]

7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

No doubt a problem yes, but Derby/Quantuma are more likely to get a payment plan out of HMRC than out of Boro or Wycombe. Also, the HMRC debt is a known and fixed quantity, so bidders have certainty over the debt they are taking on, and how it will be settled.

On the other hand, whilst Boro and Wycombe's claims may be for a certain sum, there's no guarantee regarding the costs for defending them, or the time it takes, or what might eventually be ordered as payment. It's that uncertainty that, in my opinion, makes those claims the bigger problem.

The only way Wycombe and boro go away is if Derby are liquidated and a phonex club is formed,

[Merrick's Marvels]

2 hours ago, Monkeh said:

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

 

If Derby disappeared before the end of the season, would it still be 3 going down? 

I'm guessing it would.

And we'd also lose the 3 points gained in beating them.

All of which would drop us right in the mire. 

[GrahamC]

5 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

If Derby disappeared before the end of the season, would it still be 3 going down? 

I'm guessing it would.

And we'd also lose the 3 points gained in beating them.

All of which would drop us right in the mire. 

It would see 2 clubs relegated, Bury in L1 in 2019 is the precedent here.

Think Barnsley, Peterborough & Reading are all likely to finish well below us anyway.

Derby’s results this season have been a mixed bag but Barnsley (1 of just 2 wins) & Peterborough have beaten them as well, so in this highly unlikely event, it is fairly neutral.

Edited January 14, 2022 by GrahamC

[cider11]

4 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

If Derby disappeared before the end of the season, would it still be 3 going down? 

I'm guessing it would.

And we'd also lose the 3 points gained in beating them.

All of which would drop us right in the mire. 

Would be ones less team relegated from each division. The same number as normal still go up from the division below. 

[Monkeh]

6 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

If Derby disappeared before the end of the season, would it still be 3 going down? 

I'm guessing it would.

And we'd also lose the 3 points gained in beating them.

All of which would drop us right in the mire. 

It would be 2

[Merrick's Marvels]

4 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

 It would see 2 clubs relegated.

 

Phew thanks that's what I wanted to hear. Makes sense when you stop panicking and think about it for a second.

And relax!

And Derby f!k off.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels

[ExiledAjax]

[GrahamC]

2 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Phew thanks that's what I wanted to hear. Makes sense when you stop panicking and think about it for a second.

And relax!

And Derby f!k off.

I think a far more likely scenario for them is the one we faced in 81/2, the league make them get rid of any experienced players as contracts expire & they end up playing kids.

People forget this but we were (from memory) 14th when this happened, picked up 2 draws in our next 11 games & went down as a result.

They’re buggered, either way.

[Merrick's Marvels]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Pretty unambiguous that.

Unless you're a Derby fan, apparently. 

[Merrick's Marvels]

3 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

I think a far more likely scenario for them is the one we faced in 81/2, the league make them get rid of any experienced players as contracts expire & they end up playing kids.

People forget this but we were (from memory) 14th when this happened, picked up 2 draws in our next 11 games & went down as a result.

They’re buggered, either way.

So long as the punishment fits the crime - Mike Ashley buying them would be a good start Have some of that y'cheatin *******!   

[Monkeh]

7 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Pretty unambiguous that.

Unless you're a Derby fan, apparently. 

They are just burying their heads in the sand as they can't believe their club can be in this mess,

I generally believe this is the beginning of the end for the club,

Mel doesn't want to sell the ground as it is worth 80 million (that's what they told the efl wasn't it)

 

[ExiledAjax]

8 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Pretty unambiguous that.

Unless you're a Derby fan, apparently. 

True. I don't for a second think the EFL actually want to kill off one of the oldest clubs in the country.

Now for my digression.

I have great sympathy for Derby fans who are seriously looking at their club going bust, ceasing to exist. We all know that our club has faced this before. 40 years ago maybe, but it's happened. I wasn't alive at that point, but many on here were.

I hate that it has to get to this point. There should be mechanisms in place to stop it, or to help clubs when it does happen. Clubs that cheat should be punished, severely, but there should also be systems - systems that extend beyond the EFL and its remit - that protect these unique and treasured cultural and societal assets in the UK.

That's why I've thrown my small support behind the Fan Led Review, as although it's recommendations for change may yet prove imperfect, they are at least proposals for change.

Something has to change or we will see more of this at our level of the pyramid.

 

[Bristol Rob]

8 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

True. I don't for a second think the EFL actually want to kill off one of the oldest clubs in the country.

Now for my digression.

I have great sympathy for Derby fans who are seriously looking at their club going bust, ceasing to exist. We all know that our club has faced this before. 40 years ago maybe, but it's happened. I wasn't alive at that point, but many on here were.

I hate that it has to get to this point. There should be mechanisms in place to stop it, or to help clubs when it does happen. Clubs that cheat should be punished, severely, but there should also be systems - systems that extend beyond the EFL and its remit - that protect these unique and treasured cultural and societal assets in the UK.

That's why I've thrown my small support behind the Fan Led Review, as although it's recommendations for change may yet prove imperfect, they are at least proposals for change.

Something has to change or we will see more of this at our level of the pyramid.

 

You raise a very very important point.

When 8 men had a dream for financial uncertainty and potential unemployment, are those who sing in remembrance acknowledging this now quoting 40 years, rather than 30?

[ExiledAjax]

The administrators have issued the following statement:

"The joint administrators are very much aware of the heightened speculation as to the future of DCFC - such speculation was not helped by yesterday’s press reports following a meeting of the EFL board yesterday (Thursday). This statement hopefully addresses some of the concerns as well as setting out the current position in relation to the administration.

As we have previously reported there has been considerable interest from a number of credible parties. There are currently three parties who have made offers. One of the Joint Administrators duties is to act in the interest of all creditors, and this includes secured creditors, preferential creditors and the unsecured (“ordinary") creditors owed monies by the club.

In relation to a football insolvency this duty is further compounded by dealing with those creditors known as “football creditors” which need to be dealt with in order to protect the club’s ongoing membership of the English Football League. The Joint Administrators have an exit plan ready to implement and be approved by creditors and this is with a view to adjusting offers received to accommodate the EFL insolvency policy and their requirements to creditors.

The difficulty and currently, in our view, the last remaining significant obstacle is to deal with certain claims that are very much disputed but which we are being advised by the EFL cannot be currently compromised notwithstanding statute says otherwise. Whilst we accept this is frustrating for all, none of the interested parties are able to progress matters further until such time that an agreement can be reached.

Linked to the above is the need to ensure the club can be funded, if needs be, over the coming months or until we have successfully complete a sale. The EFL have demanded that we prove adequate funding is in place and until as such time as we are able to do that, they will not progress player registrations – this includes some players where contracts needed to be extended this month.

Whilst we have a number of options as to how that funding can be delivered, we are not, today, in a position to finalise this funding however we do believe this will be finalised in the coming weeks.

We are aware of yesterday’s press comments, however, the position is not straight forward bearing in mind the position of other stakeholders. We are urgently seeking clarification from the EFL as to why these disputed claims cannot be compromised."

[chinapig]

7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The administrators have issued the following statement:

"The joint administrators are very much aware of the heightened speculation as to the future of DCFC - such speculation was not helped by yesterday’s press reports following a meeting of the EFL board yesterday (Thursday). This statement hopefully addresses some of the concerns as well as setting out the current position in relation to the administration.

As we have previously reported there has been considerable interest from a number of credible parties. There are currently three parties who have made offers. One of the Joint Administrators duties is to act in the interest of all creditors, and this includes secured creditors, preferential creditors and the unsecured (“ordinary") creditors owed monies by the club.

In relation to a football insolvency this duty is further compounded by dealing with those creditors known as “football creditors” which need to be dealt with in order to protect the club’s ongoing membership of the English Football League. The Joint Administrators have an exit plan ready to implement and be approved by creditors and this is with a view to adjusting offers received to accommodate the EFL insolvency policy and their requirements to creditors.

The difficulty and currently, in our view, the last remaining significant obstacle is to deal with certain claims that are very much disputed but which we are being advised by the EFL cannot be currently compromised notwithstanding statute says otherwise. Whilst we accept this is frustrating for all, none of the interested parties are able to progress matters further until such time that an agreement can be reached.

Linked to the above is the need to ensure the club can be funded, if needs be, over the coming months or until we have successfully complete a sale. The EFL have demanded that we prove adequate funding is in place and until as such time as we are able to do that, they will not progress player registrations – this includes some players where contracts needed to be extended this month.

Whilst we have a number of options as to how that funding can be delivered, we are not, today, in a position to finalise this funding however we do believe this will be finalised in the coming weeks.

We are aware of yesterday’s press comments, however, the position is not straight forward bearing in mind the position of other stakeholders. We are urgently seeking clarification from the EFL as to why these disputed claims cannot be compromised."

Whatever their competence or otherwise as administrators their written English is appalling and this addresses none of the concerns. Though bleating about the EFL will go down well with Derby fans who still seem to believe the rules shouldn't apply to them.

I take para 4 to be a reference to the claims from Boro and Wycombe, though it is particularly badly written. They do not in any event explain what they mean by statute. Do they mean the law or EFL regs for instance?

Whatever, announcement of a preferred bidder was supposed to be imminent before the new year, then earlier this week it was going to be a day or two. Now none of the alleged interested parties can proceed and securing funding to complete the season may take weeks it seems.

The doomsday clock is perilously close to midnight.

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Whatever their competence or otherwise as administrators their written English is appalling and this addresses none of the concerns. Though bleating about the EFL will go down well with Derby fans who still seem to believe the rules shouldn't apply to them.

I take para 4 to be a reference to the claims from Boro and Wycombe, though it is particularly badly written. They do not in any event explain what they mean by statute. Do they mean the law or EFL regs for instance?

Whatever, announcement of a preferred bidder was supposed to be imminent before the new year, then earlier this week it was going to be a day or two. Now none of the alleged interested parties can proceed and securing funding to complete the season may take weeks it seems.

The doomsday clock is perilously close to midnight.

I thought this was interesting:

36 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

We are urgently seeking clarification from the EFL as to why these disputed claims cannot be compromised."

Especially “compromised”.  Is that concession of a lower amount, a payment plan, or just simply we want to conclude a sale without that burdening it, and it the buyer will need to deal with that after the sale.

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

You raise a very very important point.

When 8 men had a dream for financial uncertainty and potential unemployment, are those who sing in remembrance acknowledging this now quoting 40 years, rather than 30?

The 8 had, for obvious reasons, only their own and their family interests at heart.

Lest not forget they were given their registrations such they could earn their livings elsewhere, plus eventually received around half the value of their outstanding contracts.

Those who were around remember the detail well and, no, we don't sing that stupid song.

[PHILINFRANCE]

11 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Whatever their competence or otherwise as administrators their written English is appalling and this addresses none of the concerns. Though bleating about the EFL will go down well with Derby fans who still seem to believe the rules shouldn't apply to them.

I take para 4 to be a reference to the claims from Boro and Wycombe, though it is particularly badly written. They do not in any event explain what they mean by statute. Do they mean the law or EFL regs for instance?

Whatever, announcement of a preferred bidder was supposed to be imminent before the new year, then earlier this week it was going to be a day or two. Now none of the alleged interested parties can proceed and securing funding to complete the season may take weeks it seems.

The doomsday clock is perilously close to midnight.

I agree entirely; particularly in so far as it concerns Quantuma's written English.

If Quantuma are referring to Statute, as in English Law, then they would presumably have used a capital letter, but, given the rest of their statement, I am none too sure.

[Hxj]

50 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The difficulty and currently, in our view, the last remaining significant obstacle is to deal with certain claims that are very much disputed but which we are being advised by the EFL cannot be currently compromised notwithstanding statute says otherwise. Whilst we accept this is frustrating for all, none of the interested parties are able to progress matters further until such time that an agreement can be reached.

My take on this is that this is another area where the EFL regulations rub uncomfortably against the legislation.  The insolvency legislation quite clearly allows a debt to be compromised, settled in amounts or terms different from what is potentially due.  EFL Regulations state that all 'Football Creditors' have to be paid in full.  The Middlesbrough and Wycombe amounts, if they are successful, are clearly 'Football Creditors'.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Compromised- I assume the EFL are wanting it to be settled one way or another, whereas Quantuma want the new owner to take it on. Chances are it would have to be settled via an EFL Arbitration- Dispute between clubs.

@Hxj has mentioned it before but one risk with Quantuma's approach is that Middlesbrough and Wycombe win and then the new owner therefore has a contingent liability that crystalises- as if they win they become football creditors probably, and in that scenario the club or the new owner would need to stump up another £50m or risk being kicked out of the League.

The problem is that this takes time and presumably money- something that Derby severely lack as it would have to go before the relevant Arbitration Hearing, assume each would be heard separately- how long would that take??

Edited January 14, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[E.G.Red]

4 hours ago, Hxj said:

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

And off to Stoke apparently

[ExiledAjax]

41 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Whatever their competence or otherwise as administrators their written English is appalling and this addresses none of the concerns. Though bleating about the EFL will go down well with Derby fans who still seem to believe the rules shouldn't apply to them.

I take para 4 to be a reference to the claims from Boro and Wycombe, though it is particularly badly written. They do not in any event explain what they mean by statute. Do they mean the law or EFL regs for instance?

Whatever, announcement of a preferred bidder was supposed to be imminent before the new year, then earlier this week it was going to be a day or two. Now none of the alleged interested parties can proceed and securing funding to complete the season may take weeks it seems.

The doomsday clock is perilously close to midnight.

I copied this from the local Derby press website, so it may have been edited - although was in quotation marks so should be verbatim. Yes it's very poorly written.

In the first sentence of para 4 I think they are trying to explain that the biggest obstacle is the claims by Boro and Wycombe. Derby/Quantuma 'very much dispute' those claims (although it isn't made clear exactly what they dispute - basis, details, facts, application and interpretation of laws/regs to the facts, quantum, maybe all of it?). Then I think they are saying that the EFL 'advise' that the claims by Boro and Wycombe must not be 'compromised'. Derby/Quantuma think that statute (?) says that the claims can be 'compromised'.

It is an absolute disgrace of a sentence. As  @Davefevs says - what on earth does the word 'compromised' mean in this context?

I think Hxj answers @PHILINFRANCE's reasonable question regarding the 'statute' they allude to.

10 minutes ago, Hxj said:

My take on this is that this is another area where the EFL regulations rub uncomfortably against the legislation.  The insolvency legislation quite clearly allows a debt to be compromised, settled in amounts or terms different from what is potentially due.  EFL Regulations state that all 'Football Creditors' have to be paid in full.  The Middlesbrough and Wycombe amounts, if they are successful, are clearly 'Football Creditors'.

In all it's clearly messy, and as I said earlier today I think that Derby/Quantuma and the EFL (and their various legal teams) are having a big argument over, as Hxj puts it, the way in which the EFL regulations rub uncomfortably against the legislation. Communication has been muddied and has not been effective.

Edit: just to add that if Derby/Quantuma are arguing that the insolvency laws as set out in legislation/statute should take precedence over the EFL's own regulations, I would be minded to agree with them (bearing in mind I have not been briefed on the detail of their argument).

Edited January 14, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

Could be getting into the realms of conspiracy  here but Birch and Andronikou have history- and not in a positive way!

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/feb/20/portsmouth-administrator-conflict

Andronikou was the administrator the first time around and Birch appointed the 2nd time around. Andronikou of course is part of Quantuma's input at Derby although Hosking seems to be the main point of contact with the media etc.

In fact, elements of this Derby administration are quite similar to Portsmouth- not least the HMRC debt being huge but also the administrators looking for loopholes, workarounds- think Portsmouth were looking at an appeal vs a) Their PL points deduction in 2010 and b) Their European ban in the event they qualified via the FA Cup- banned as being in administration fell foul of some criteria or another.

All sounds like a familiar tune??

Also he managed to get out of HMRC being able to block a CVA IIRC, disputed amount linked to Image Rights or somesuch.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Bannerman]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

True. I don't for a second think the EFL actually want to kill off one of the oldest clubs in the country.

Now for my digression.

I have great sympathy for Derby fans who are seriously looking at their club going bust, ceasing to exist. We all know that our club has faced this before. 40 years ago maybe, but it's happened. I wasn't alive at that point, but many on here were.

I hate that it has to get to this point. There should be mechanisms in place to stop it, or to help clubs when it does happen. Clubs that cheat should be punished, severely, but there should also be systems - systems that extend beyond the EFL and its remit - that protect these unique and treasured cultural and societal assets in the UK.

That's why I've thrown my small support behind the Fan Led Review, as although it's recommendations for change may yet prove imperfect, they are at least proposals for change.

Something has to change or we will see more of this at our level of the pyramid.

 

Although I can agree with your sentiments regarding fans. Unfortunately fans are not appreciated anymore only as “cash cows”.

[Hxj]

53 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Edit: just to add that if Derby/Quantuma are arguing that the insolvency laws as set out in legislation/statute should take precedence over the EFL's own regulations, I would be minded to agree with them (bearing in mind I have not been briefed on the detail of their argument).

And that takes us back to the, almost, beginning.  So if insolvency law takes precedence then presumably 'Football Creditors' are simply a subset of 'Unsecured Creditors' under insolvency law, and therefore have no special treatment? 

Hence the mess Derby are in.

[PHILINFRANCE]

I do have the utmost sympathy for the Derby fans, even their 'EFL on strings' comments can be considered as 'banter', and I think it was admirable that they clubbed together to settle the debt due to St. John's Ambulance.

What angers me about Derby, however, or, rather, about Mel Morris, is the fact that he couldn't bring himself to settle the SJA debt himself: it surely couldn't have been huge and, even bearing in the mind the loss he has suffered due to his ill-fated Derby adventure, he is still a multi-millionaire.

I shall certainly shed no tears should Derby County be liquidated, and I just wonder how he (Mel Morris) will feel as the proud owner of an £80 Million () football stadium with no team to play in it.    

[ExiledAjax]

9 minutes ago, Hxj said:

And that takes us back to the, almost, beginning.  So if insolvency law takes precedence then presumably 'Football Creditors' are simply a subset of 'Unsecured Creditors' under insolvency law, and therefore have no special treatment? 

Hence the mess Derby are in.

Honestly, I suspect the answer from the EFL is:

1. we agree that insolvency law trumps our regulations; and
2. we aren't stopping you from exiting administration, if you've got a deal with creditors then you (the company) can do that right now under insolvency law; but
3. unless you also adhere to our rules - which say you have to satisfy 'Football Creditors' - then it's off to the National League with you as we're a private members league and have our own rules as well.

Trouble there of course is that it is hard enough to get someone to buy a failing Championship/L1 club and satisfy tens of millions of pounds worth of debt...no one is going to do that for a non-league club.

And so we are back at the beginning, with a club that has no residual value, mountains of debt, saleable assets, and ends up bust.

And all because the old regime cheated, gained competitive advantage through that cheating, and then got caught.

4 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I shall certainly shed no tears should Derby County be liquidated, and I just wonder how he (Mel Morris) will feel as the proud owner of an £80 Million () football stadium with no team to play in it.    

Imagine if he starts up Derby City FC. The scenes.

Edited January 14, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Hxj]

58 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Honestly, I suspect the answer from the EFL is:

1. we agree that insolvency law trumps our regulations

The trouble is that the EFL think that their ‘Football Creditor’ rules trump insolvency laws.

[Mr Popodopolous]

25 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The trouble is that the EFL think that their ‘Football Creditor’ rules trump insolvency laws.

In theory then, in extremis.

Could a Court rule one way on categories, priorities of insolvency and creditors but the EFL expel or suspend Derby for not fulfilling their criteria ie Football Creditor Regs. Mad though it sounds.

While I'm at it and @ExiledAjax too- what extent does the fact Derby's accounts had to be restated owing not solely to overspending but the fact that they were ruled in breach of FRS 102 enhance this problem?

ie Overspending plus ruled/claimed breach of FRS 102=Enhanced basis of claim against Derby.

Whereas otherwise compliant accounts that saw overspending, well that is unequivocally a sporting sanction (points deduction).

Edited January 14, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Monkeh]

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

My take on this is that this is another area where the EFL regulations rub uncomfortably against the legislation.  The insolvency legislation quite clearly allows a debt to be compromised, settled in amounts or terms different from what is potentially due.  EFL Regulations state that all 'Football Creditors' have to be paid in full.  The Middlesbrough and Wycombe amounts, if they are successful, are clearly 'Football Creditors'.

Included in that is hmrc now,

So I'd it isn't paid in full the country is losing out

[Monkeh]

30 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The trouble is that the EFL think that their ‘Football Creditor’ rules trump insolvency laws.

But they do, if Derby don't abide by the football leagues rules then Derby can't join the football league,

They are the same rules for all 72 members and voted upon by all 72 members, 

[Hxj]

35 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Could a Court rule one way on categories, priorities of insolvency and creditors but the EFL expel or suspend Derby for not fulfilling their criteria ie Football Creditor Regs.

Yep - that's the point I have been making badly since Derby went into Administration.

 

44 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

I still remain more concerned that the accountants/auditors/HMRC and the legal system allow so many clubs to continue for too long as insolvent businesses.

An insolvent business is one which cannot pay debts when due (simplified I accept).  The 'Going Concern' report in Bristol City accounts is extensive and explains that the shareholder has agreed to keep the company solvent for at least the next 12 months, that deals with that issue.  I have also argued that this is the main reason why Derby failed to submit accounts, Morris did not want to give that guarantee.

 

 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Honestly, I suspect the answer from the EFL is:

1. we agree that insolvency law trumps our regulations; and
2. we aren't stopping you from exiting administration, if you've got a deal with creditors then you (the company) can do that right now under insolvency law; but
3. unless you also adhere to our rules - which say you have to satisfy 'Football Creditors' - then it's off to the National League with you as we're a private members league and have our own rules as well.

Trouble there of course is that it is hard enough to get someone to buy a failing Championship/L1 club and satisfy tens of millions of pounds worth of debt...no one is going to do that for a non-league club.

And so we are back at the beginning, with a club that has no residual value, mountains of debt, saleable assets, and ends up bust.

And all because the old regime cheated, gained competitive advantage through that cheating, and then got caught.

Imagine if he starts up Derby City FC. The scenes.

I think those 3 points sum it up for me and help answer why it’s a mess…especially point 3.  I was struggling to wrap my head around it.

[REDOXO]

35 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think those 3 points sum it up for me and help answer why it’s a mess…especially point 3.  I was struggling to wrap my head around it.

Gibbo always knew he holds Derby and Mel Boy by the balls. Wycombe bloke now knows too. Any other club want to make a claim. 

Edited January 15, 2022 by REDOXO

[Ska Junkie]

What I don't get is how on earth can Derby ask to sign players as they seem to want to do?

Why on earth would a contracted player go there is another question?

[Monkeh]

7 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

What I don't get is how on earth can Derby ask to sign players as they seem to want to do?

Why on earth would a contracted player go there is another question?

Even under a transfer embargo you can sign players,

Granted they are only on the free or loan and must not breach a wage threshold, and finally once you have 24 players (youth over 17 on professional contracts count towards this I think)

Then you can no longer sign anyone,

As for ooc players going their, some go to be in the shop window, some because they have nothing else and some because they want the challenge

[bcfcredandwhite]

Saw this in the Scum this morning:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/17331867/derby-kicked-out-championship-takeover-rooney/

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Monkeh said:

Even under a transfer embargo you can sign players,

Granted they are only on the free or loan and must not breach a wage threshold, and finally once you have 24 players (youth over 17 on professional contracts count towards this I think)

Then you can no longer sign anyone,

As for ooc players going their, some go to be in the shop window, some because they have nothing else and some because they want the challenge

I remembered I’d seen this in the Derby decision document. 6.2 covers off the likes of Ebosele, Buchanan, Bird, etc.

 

 

[Hxj]

Latest - deadline a fortnight on Tuesday or that is that.

 

[Monkeh]

3 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Latest - deadline a fortnight on Tuesday or that is that.

 

The admin are trying to blame the efl for the admins arrogance

[ExiledAjax]

7 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Latest - deadline a fortnight on Tuesday or that is that.

 

Pretty simple route out of it really. Either someone stumps up the cash or Derby dies. 

Same as it was 4 months ago.

[Monkeh]

11 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Pretty simple route out of it really. Either someone stumps up the cash or Derby dies. 

Same as it was 4 months ago.

I find the Derby fans crying about this blaming the efl amusing

This is Derby's fault and own making, had they accepted the punishment last season and not appealed then none of this would be happening,

They'd be in league 1 with new owners 

Also stating the the hmrc won't get their money if Derby are liquidated,

The hmrc want a massive club to go to the wall to send a message to the other clubs not to mess with their tax contributions 

Edited January 15, 2022 by Monkeh

[Hxj]

Shinnie on his way too, according to my local rag.

Breaking Derby County transfer news as the Rams accept a bid for midfielder - Derbyshire Live (derbytelegraph.co.uk)

 

[Monkeh]

1 minute ago, Hxj said:

Shinnie on his way too, according to my local rag.

Breaking Derby County transfer news as the Rams accept a bid for midfielder - Derbyshire Live (derbytelegraph.co.uk)

 

The fire sale begins 

[East Londoner]

Roughly how much do they need to complete the season?

[Hxj]

1 minute ago, East Londoner said:

Roughly how much do they need to complete the season?

Guesses are around £7 million cash.

[Monkeh]

5 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Guesses are around £7 million cash.

That's 3 players in today's market 

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

That's 3 players in today's market 

That’s 7+ players in Derby’s position

[Monkeh]

Just now, Davefevs said:

That’s 7+ players in Derby’s position

Some of their young players could command decent fees, plus manager compensation when Everton comes calling 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I would like Derby to survive and I feel sympathy with a reasonable chunk of the fans but shit like this tempers it!

At a time where we are having to pay more in NI from April, HMRC will be looking for more tax from the rest of us- well!?

The optics are not good, not least as a Melvyn Morris appeared to have donated to the Tories in 2017- albeit seems to be a one off and could be a different Melvyn Morris from Derbyshire. Unsurprisingly though, the political lobbying or calls are a thing. Beckett is Labour however,

Also what have the internal EFL Regulations which Derby signed up to got to do with her and other MPs- I understand the desperation but the shift the blame culture from a significant minority of Derby fans, leaves a real bad taste.

I also believe that the £8m out of £28m figure floated was no coincidence- because EFL regs state 25% minimum for unsecured creditors- if it went to court, I assume Derby/Quantuma would be seeking a cross class cram down which can be imposed upon classes of creditors, just above that threshold but not prohibitively so- and a hefty write-down all the same. If HMRC had accepted that or do accept that then other Unsecured Creditors would have to accept the same- Football Creditors aside- just enough to avoid the 15 pts next season?

Edited January 15, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Monkeh]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I would like Derby to survive and I feel sympathy with a reasonable chunk of the fans but shit like this tempers it!

At a time where we are having to pay more in NI from April, HMRC will be looking for more tax from the rest of us- well!?

The optics are not good, not least as a Melvyn Morris appeared to have donated to the Tories in 2017- albeit seems to be a one off and could be a different Melvyn Morris from Derbyshire. Unsurprisingly though, the political lobbying or calls are a thing. Beckett is Labour however,

Also what have the internal EFL Regulations which Derby signed up to got to do with her and other MPs- I understand the desperation but the shift the blame culture from a significant minority of Derby fans, leaves a real bad taste.

I also believe that the £8m out of £28m figure floated was no coincidence- because EFL regs state 25% minimum for unsecured creditors- if it went to court, I assume Derby/Quantuma would be seeking a cross down cram down which can be imposed upon class of creditors, just above that threshold but not prohibitively so- and a hefty write-down all the same. If HMRC had accepted that or do accept that then other Unsecured Creditors would have to accept the same- Football Creditors aside- just enough to avoid the 15 pts next season?

Hmrc are classed as football Creditors now I thought, so have to be paid in full,

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Hmrc are classed as football Creditors now I thought, so have to be paid in full,

Not altogether sure on that one- @Hxj knows more than me on this so I'll defer to him! Sure a few others have greater knowledge too.

City are on soon so...will get back on it tomorrow or Monday probably.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

4 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Hmrc are classed as football Creditors now I thought

Nope - technically they are '2nd Preferential Creditors', they should be paid in full before any 'Unsecured Creditors'.  

[Monkeh]

6 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Nope - technically they are '2nd Preferential Creditors', they should be paid in full before any 'Unsecured Creditors'.  

Ahhh that's it

[REDOXO]

The Shear arrogance and blame shifting culture of all concerned with this bloody football club is as galling as it gets!

Their continual chase to recapture a perceived glorious past has constantly put them in financial problems over many years. However Mel Boy is the greatest of them all. Not declaring his accounts to the FA/EFL, Constant bickering and fighting over the rules, Not paying tax on players wages over an extended period, selling the ground  to the owner to the Football Club but never actually realizing the cash, the list is effing endless!

Yet whining ****  **** blame every one from the board of the EFL to @Mr Popodopolous for there god and sympathy forsaken plight! 
 

For the benefit of any Derby Fans reading this. Mel Morris Is To Blame! And No We All Pay Our Effing Taxes Derby County needs to also. If Derby Fans want to do something useful that other supporters can get behind perhaps think about any possible legal action that may be taken against Mel Bloody Morris!

[Lanterne Rouge]

As a small business owner who has to jump through numerous hoops and have my integrity questioned if I so much as suggest I might not be able to pay my (relatively) small VAT bill on time I will be ******* livid if they get away with not having to pay HMRC in full.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

As a small business owner who has to jump through numerous hoops and have my integrity questioned if I so much as suggest I might not be able to pay my (relatively) small VAT bill on time I will be ******* livid if they get away with not having to pay HMRC in full.

Agree, they paid players to avoid further points deductions / embargo, whilst not paying the tax and NI.  £26m of it.  Mel Morris made that decision, now he's run away.  Why isn't the anger at him?

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

The Shear arrogance and blame shifting culture of all concerned with this bloody football club is as galling as it gets!

Their continual chase to recapture a perceived glorious past has constantly put them in financial problems over many years. However Mel Boy is the greatest of them all. Not declaring his accounts to the FA/EFL, Constant bickering and fighting over the rules, Not paying tax on players wages over an extended period, selling the ground  to the owner to the Football Club but never actually realizing the cash, the list is effing endless!

Yet whining ****  **** blame every one from the board of the EFL to @Mr Popodopolous for there god and sympathy forsaken plight! 
 

For the benefit of any Derby Fans reading this. Mel Morris Is To Blame! And No We All Pay Our Effing Taxes Derby County needs to also. If Derby Fans want to do something useful that other supporters can get behind perhaps think about any possible legal action that may be taken against Mel Bloody Morris!

 

9 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

As a small business owner who has to jump through numerous hoops and have my integrity questioned if I so much as suggest I might not be able to pay my (relatively) small VAT bill on time I will be ******* livid if they get away with not having to pay HMRC in full.

 

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Agree, they paid players to avoid further points deductions / embargo, whilst not paying the tax and NI.  £26m of it.  Mel Morris made that decision, now he's run away.  Why isn't the anger at him?

They're trying to lobby MPs, make petitions etc. One of their highest earners got both today and their great run continues, have won a number of games with 1 or equal shots on target to goals- very clinical? 12 goals, 18 shots on target I think or 12 from 19- Bournemouth home to now.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[REDOXO]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

 

They're trying to lobby MPs, make petitions etc. One of their highest earners got both today and their great run continues, have won a number of games with 1 or equal shots on target- very clinical?

Good for them. The players are really putting it in and we all have to appreciate that, but we all know that unless there is some kind of confirmed financing soon anyone who is any good will have to be sold and if that money is not actually in the pipeline the players are losing value by the minute. 
 

Mel Morris holds the key. If he picks up some of the debt personally, without prejudice, maybe they have a chance, but I don’t see it. He looks to me like he would rather watch them die than spend a penny from his own fortune. Makes you happy we have SL no matter whatever anyone says or thinks! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I notice a rather vocal and loud Derby fan complaining about some of the perceived injustices- AndrewD.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59918636

Very common name but wonder if D might stand for Delve? Surprised there was no looking at the audit company given the case and ruled against FRS 102.

Andrew Delve-Smith Cooper-Auditors of DCFC, unsure if they still are...and someone of the same name of the same company called James Delve is a passionate DCFC fan as per his entry on the auditors site?

Edited January 15, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

 

They're trying to lobby MPs, make petitions etc. One of their highest earners got both today and their great run continues, have won a number of games with 1 or equal shots on target to goals- very clinical? 12 goals, 18 shots on target I think or 12 from 19- Bournemouth home to now.

Even if they were a top team you'd say that kind of clinical finishing is unsustainable.  

They're going down or going bust.

If they want to pester the receptionist at the EFL then go ahead. It'll get them nowhere.

[Mr Popodopolous]

32 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Even if they were a top team you'd say that kind of clinical finishing is unsustainable.  

They're going down or going bust.

If they want to pester the receptionist at the EFL then go ahead. It'll get them nowhere.

I think they hope MPs will intervene, lobby HMRC and the EFL to cut Derby more slack, perhaps they claim that the EFL's current actions are ultra vires.

It is a bit yep.

Derby 3 Bournemouth 2. Derby? 3 shots on target, one of them a penalty.

Derby 1 West Brom 0. Derby? Were somewhat dominated but 1 shot on target and a win it is! Think there was a horrible goalkeeping error by WBA in there.

Derby 2 Sheffield United 0. Derby? 2 shots on target and great goals they were too.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think they hope MPs will intervene, lobby HMRC and the EFL to cut Derby more slack, perhaps they claim that the EFL's current actions are ultra vires.

It is a bit yep.

Derby 3 Bournemouth 2. Derby? 3 shots on target, one of them a penalty.

Derby 1 West Brom 0. Derby? Were somewhat dominated but 1 shot on target and a win it is! Think there was a horrible goalkeeping error by WBA in there.

Derby 2 Sheffield United 0. Derby? 2 shots on target and great goals they were too.

They are consistently outperforming their xG by a decent margin. It'll regress to what's expected - and they'll stop scoring.

Don't worry Pop, they're going down unless they go bust first.

MPs have **** all jurisdiction over HMRC or the EFL, neither of whom are doing anything illegal or "ultra vires."

Now, if there were an independent regulator established by Parliament in place...but we can but dream eh?

Edited January 15, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, billywedlock said:

Morris is described as being worth 500M. That maybe be debatable, and not include some Derby write offs. But that man is why HMRC is owed 23M and why in hell should he not be paying that debt. He will still have hundreds of millions even if the quoted wealth numbers are warped. It is disgusting . The Labour Mp should be talking to HMRC about chasing Morris down to pay his debts. That he can in fact afford to pay. 

That’s probably my biggest beef….threatened with points deductions for not paying the players, he takes the easy route - pays the players but not their tax and NI.  Imagine if HMRC came to Rooney or Lawrence for the missing tax and NI….sorry chaps, your employer hasn’t paid up, it’s yours to repay now.  Woukd feel a bit different wouldn’t it.  Now, I know that’s not the case, but it shows the contempt Morris has for doing things properly.

He’s allowed Derby to build these debts, he’s supposed to underwrite the losses…yet he doesn’t want to.  How does that work?  This is why there needs to be some “deposit” or “bond” before a club can rack up losses.

I think it’s disgusting.

[martnewts]

Surely the efl rules need to change to ensure that both the wages and associated PAYE, Employees NI and Employes Ni are paid each month to avoid sanctions. Currently late paid wages trigger sanctions but I don’t believe late payment of the amounts due to HMRC are included, at the level of championship wages this amount  would be roughly equal to the net wages payable to players each month 

[Hxj]

9 hours ago, martnewts said:

Surely the efl rules need to change

I think that Derby would have gone through some sort of sale, reorganisation or insolvency event before the end of the 2019/20 season due to the January 2020 insolvency action by HMRC if it had not been for the virus stopping all HMRC winding up procedures. It needs to be remembered that Derby went into Administration on 22 September 2021, HMRC were restarting insolvency actions on 1 October 2021, that is not a coincidence.

Oh and Regulation 17 is pretty thorough:

17           HMRC Reporting

17.1        Current HMRC Debt.  Any Club which has not within 28 (twenty-eight) days of the relevant Due Date paid to HMRC the amounts due to be paid to HMRC to discharge:

17.1.1    the Club’s full liability for PAYE & NIC due in respect of any and all employees or former employees of the Club for the immediately preceding payment period; and/or

17.1.2    the Club's full liability for PAYE & NIC which becomes due as a result of an assessment issued by HMRC, subject to clause 17.8 below,

(each a ‘Default Event’) shall report the Default Event to The League within 2 working days of the Default Event.

17.2        Reporting Default Events.  When a Club reports a Default Event to The League it shall at the same time provide to The League details of any and all amounts due to HMRC from the Club in respect of PAYE & NIC, together with the periods to which they relate.

17.3        Consequences of a Default Event.  Without prejudice to the general position (pursuant to Regulation 43.4) that all registrations must be approved by The League and subject to Regulation 17.3A, a Club which is subject to a Default Event shall be subject to a registration embargo such that it shall not be permitted to register any Player with that Club without the prior written consent of The League for the period that the Club is subject to a Default Event.

17.3A   Regulation 17.3 will not apply where a Club suffers a Default Event due to the failure to discharge a COVID PAYE Liability and has entered into a Time to Pay Agreement and is compliant with the terms of that Time To Pay Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, where a Club defaults on the terms of a Time to Pay Agreement, and such default results in all outstanding amounts becoming due to HMRC immediately, the Club shall remain subject to a Default Event until such time as the outstanding amounts are paid or included within any other Time to Pay Agreement.

17.4        Failure to Notify a Default Event.  A Club which fails to report a Default Event shall be guilty of misconduct and shall be referred to a Disciplinary Commission in accordance with Section 7 of these Regulations.

17.5        Provision of Authority.  Each Club shall provide to The League, not later than 31 May prior to the commencement of a Season, (and in any event within seven days of any request for a further authority from The League), an original, irrevocable authority (which shall not be time constrained) in the form prescribed by The League and signed by a director and the company secretary of the Club, addressed to HMRC authorising HMRC to provide to The League information relating to amounts of PAYE & NIC payable, paid and overdue from the Club to HMRC from time to time including, by way of example and without limitation, the amount of Arrears (if any), the existence of and current position in respect of any Time to Pay Agreement and if a Club suffers a Default Event (‘Authority’).  The League shall be entitled to forward the Authority to HMRC without having to seek the consent of the Club. 

17.6        The Board shall have the power to suspend any Club which, not later than 31 May prior to the Commencement of the following Season (including, for the avoidance of doubt, those Clubs entering The League by way of promotion from the National League or relegation from the Premier League for the following Season) or within seven days of a request, fails to provide to The League the Authority in the required form.  A suspended Club shall not play in:

17.6.1    any League Match;

17.6.2    any Football Association Cup Match;

17.6.3    any EFL Cup Match;

17.6.4    any EFL Trophy Match; and/or

17.6.5    any other match conducted or controlled by The League and in which it would otherwise be eligible to compete.

17.7        For the purposes of the League Competition, the Board shall have the power to determine how the cancellation of a League Match caused by the suspension of one of the Clubs, which should have participated in it, shall be treated.

17.8        Disputed Amounts.  Any amounts which HMRC claims to be due to it, for example by way of an assessment, but which have been formally contested by the Club shall not be considered as due to HMRC for the purposes of this Regulation 17 until such time as a final determination is made on HMRC’s claim.

17.9        Information provided by a Club and/or HMRC in relation to any Arrears shall only be made available to senior members of The League’s staff and the independent Chairman (as described in Article 17.1.1) and shall not be disclosed to the Board generally, provided always that The League shall be entitled to report the happening of a Default Event to the Board for the purposes of enforcing Regulation 17.3 (Consequences of a Default Event).

[Davefevs]

So Derby are lucky they’ve not been thrown out already!

[Finley_Smith10]

Don’t know how reliable but Derby just accepted a 30k bid for Shinnie from Wigan. Surely we have to be looking at some of their players if they’re accepting stupid bids like that 

[Davefevs]

35 minutes ago, Finley_Smith10 said:

Don’t know how reliable but Derby just accepted a 30k bid for Shinnie from Wigan. Surely we have to be looking at some of their players if they’re accepting stupid bids like that 

OOC in the summer.  Wouldn’t surprise me if Derby are just happy to save his wages for the rest of the season.