Derby County

[REDOXO]

Benitez Gone. WW may have his escape route!

[East Londoner]

13 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Benitez Gone. WW may have his escape route!

Compensation would be welcomed too 

[ExiledAjax]

4 hours ago, Hxj said:

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:

How is "Due Date" defined? Seems like any default turns on when that is.

[underover]

On 15/01/2022 at 14:46, 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 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?

I can understand being desperate and going to anyone you can for help anywhere, but if a Labour MP were to actually advocate for companies/'the rich' (because whislt it may not technically be MM's liability its his mess and he could surely trump up the bill if he is indeed worth ~500m) not having to pay taxes then at that point whats the point in the party? I know Labour has changed/is changing a lot in recent(ish - ok 20 odd!) years but that still goes against everything the party stands for. Even at the hight of New Labour and convergence with Thatcherism/lite Mandelson still had his - we don't care if people get filthy stinking rich, just as long as they pay their taxes.  Theres little an MP/The Govt can really do anyway since yes its got nothing to do with either an individual opposition MP or the government. 

I agree on the blame shifting too, obviosuly there's the 'efl on strings' comments but I agree with some others they can ultimately be taken as banter and they don't make the potential sinking of Derby in any way palatable but I do think it's rich complaining about fair treatment when they in essence didn't treat much of the rest (or at least those who adhered to the rules) of the league with fairness. 

I also cannot comprehend the lack of blame aimed at Morris, I know when this was unravelling a few months ago they did start to place the blame at his door, slowly began to lift some of the wool from their eyes, but it seems now none of them really mention him? I don't go out of my way to interact with Derby fans or find what theyre thinking and I'm only friends with a few so perhaps I'm simply missing it but theres anger at the efl, and the admins (though even that seems to be dying down now?) but none/hardly any for Morris. I can't understand why they're not furious  with him. It's like the admins have managed to put up such a sustained propaganda campaign they believe it? Or simply want to believe it perhaps since I refuse to believe that many people are that easily distracted/swayed from something. Then again, 'accountability' wouldn't be a word I would associate with any of the last few years of this country so I shouldn't be surprised. 

[underover]

18 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Not sure why Derby fans are not petitioning Mel Morris. He can solve all of the crap he created and avoid liquidation and pay HMRC in the process. They will then just have Boro and WW to worry about. 

Well if he gave even half a c**p they wouldn't be in this position in the first place you'd imagine but yes he's the one they should be focusing on 

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, underover said:

I can't understand why they're not furious  with him.

If they blame Morris then they have to admit that he, and by extension Derby County, cheated.

Read the forum and you see that quite a few still don't even admit to that, or they blame the EFL for "changing the rules" to ensure they failed P&S in the first place.

Many just have a general view that the EFL have it in for them.

 

[chinapig]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

If they blame Morris then they have to admit that he, and by extension Derby County, cheated.

Read the forum and you see that quite a few still don't even admit to that, or they blame the EFL for "changing the rules" to ensure they failed P&S in the first place.

Many just have a general view that the EFL have it in for them.

 

If they blame Morris they will be blaming themselves. After all this is a fanbase that cheered him on because he was apparently too clever for the EFL.

They are not going to admit they were either conned, stupid or both so they will plough on with their victim mentality to avoid the truth.

Any sympathy I had has dissipated because of their arrogant attitude.

[Ska Junkie]

Excuse my stupidity but if Derby get some kind of dispensation / discount from the HMRC, wouldn't that set a precedent so that all clubs could do the same thing, saving £Ms?

[Hxj]

Looks like Jason Knight is out next - Derby County set to sell £8m captain Jason Knight | Irish Sport | The Sunday Times (thetimes.co.uk)

However selling him would mean that Derby would have enough cash to last the season.

[REDOXO]

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

If they blame Morris they will be blaming themselves. After all this is a fanbase that cheered him on because he was apparently too clever for the EFL.

They are not going to admit they were either conned, stupid or both so they will plough on with their victim mentality to avoid the truth.

Any sympathy I had has dissipated because of their arrogant attitude.

This does sum it up perfectly. Their bloody victim mentality is so galling it makes me mad. 
 

These half wits cheered this horrible individual at every turn as he tried to weasel out of every rule and obligation to the league the supporters of his own club (and others) and the players. And now it’s all the EFL, Gibson and Wycombe Wanderers fault. 
 

One of these bloody lunatics even got invited onto one of the many City podcasts there are. 
 

I’ll have more sympathy with the plight of the supporters when they finally come to terms with who is responsible, who supported him, and that yes that some clubs (if not all) do have a legitimate gripe for the out and out cheating of the rules of the league and the Inland Revenue. (not to mention not paying their suppliers including St Johns Ambulance for the love of god!)

[REDOXO]

17 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

Excuse my stupidity but if Derby get some kind of dispensation / discount from the HMRC, wouldn't that set a precedent so that all clubs could do the same thing, saving £Ms?

Yes. Highly unlikely!

The best they might get is a payment plan to pay what’s owed over an extended period!

[ExiledAjax]

9 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

This does sum it up perfectly. Their bloody victim mentality is so galling it makes me mad. 
 

These half wits cheered this horrible individual at every turn as he tried to weasel out of every rule and obligation to the league the supporters of his own club (and others) and the players. And now it’s all the EFL, Gibson and Wycombe Wanderers fault. 
 

One of these bloody lunatics even got invited onto one of the many City podcasts there are. 
 

I’ll have more sympathy with the plight of the supporters when they finally come to terms with who is responsible, who supported him, and that yes that some clubs (if not all) do have a legitimate gripe for the out and out cheating of the rules of the league and the Inland Revenue. (not to mention not paying their suppliers including St Johns Ambulance for the love of god!)

There are some who get it, let's not tar them all with the same brush. But there's a very vocal element who simply think the EFL and others have it in for them. It's tragic.

[REDOXO]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

There are some who get it, let's not tar them all with the same brush. But there's a very vocal element who simply think the EFL and others have it in for them. It's tragic.

Yes I do understand that despite my diatribe. But the ‘vocal element’ seems to be far and away a majority, at least to me!

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

There are some who get it, let's not tar them all with the same brush. But there's a very vocal element who simply think the EFL and others have it in for them. It's tragic.

Fair enough but if their forum is anything to go by the ones who get it are in a very small minority and even they tend to say it's Mel's fault but.... EFL, Gibson,HMRC etc.

[Loosey Boy]

27 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Looks like Jason Knight is out next - Derby County set to sell £8m captain Jason Knight | Irish Sport | The Sunday Times (thetimes.co.uk)

However selling him would mean that Derby would have enough cash to last the season.

Would only have enough cash if all paid up front which in this day and age, is unlikely.

Rumours that they need to have £7m in the bank on 1st Feb to prove to EFL that they have enough money to see the season through - think there will be a couple more sold

Edited January 16, 2022 by Loosey Boy

[ExiledAjax]

13 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Yes I do understand that despite my diatribe. But the ‘vocal element’ seems to be far and away a majority, at least to me!

 

5 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Fair enough but if their forum is anything to go by the ones who get it are in a very small minority and even they tend to say it's Mel's fault but.... EFL, Gibson,HMRC etc.

If their forum is anything to go by then the real victim of this whole thing is the poor lady manning the EFL phone line yesterday.

Hopefully a damehood heading her way in the birthday honours list.

Edited January 16, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Mr X]

I wouldn't mind seeing Ebosele here from Derby if they're accepting cheap offers for players

[underover]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

If they blame Morris they will be blaming themselves. After all this is a fanbase that cheered him on because he was apparently too clever for the EFL.

They are not going to admit they were either conned, stupid or both so they will plough on with their victim mentality to avoid the truth.

Any sympathy I had has dissipated because of their arrogant attitude.

You’re both right of course I suppose I just thought that the mounting evidence would prove to much but I clearly not!

They seem to be a classic case of cognitive dissonance (which I had to google because I never quite trust my grasp on it as a concept): 

 To deal with the apparent dissonance (where a cult leaders claims had been disproven), cult members denied or rationalized away the evidence and then desperately sought new followers to support the face-saving reinterpretation of the situation

Obviously the research is on cults & quotes from an article on political dissonance but it seems very fitting! Especially if you see the way they’re now sharing their petition, trying to get MPs involved, etc it all seems to fit. 
 

My sympathy is definitely tempered that’s for sure, there’s definitely those out there who haven’t been like that but from what I’ve seen on social media (and again I don’t go out to find out what Derby fans think so I doubt I’m representative) it’s very few, I think I can only think of the one that I’ve interacted with who’s been introspective about the whole thing 

 

Edit: I don’t know why the text is so massive but I’m a technophobe and apparently can’t change it! 

Edited January 16, 2022 by underover

[REDOXO]

12 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

 

If their forum is anything to go by then the real victim of this whole thing is the poor lady manning the EFL phone line yesterday.

Hopefully a damehood heading her way in the birthday honours list.

God yes! 
 

Dame Mildred of Preston. 

[chinapig]

11 minutes ago, underover said:

You’re both right of course I suppose I just thought that the mounting evidence would prove to much but I clearly not!

They seem to be a classic case of cognitive dissonance (which I had to google because I never quite trust my grasp on it as a concept): 

 To deal with the apparent dissonance (where a cult leaders claims had been disproven), cult members denied or rationalized away the evidence and then desperately sought new followers to support the face-saving reinterpretation of the situation

Obviously the research is on cults & quotes from an article on political dissonance but it seems very fitting! Especially if you see the way they’re now sharing their petition, trying to get MPs involved, etc it all seems to fit. 
 

My sympathy is definitely tempered that’s for sure, there’s definitely those out there who haven’t been like that but from what I’ve seen on social media (and again I don’t go out to find out what Derby fans think so I doubt I’m representative) it’s very few, I think I can only think of the one that I’ve interacted with who’s been introspective about the whole thing 

 

Edit: I don’t know why the text is so massive but I’m a technophobe and apparently can’t change it! 

Good point. Psychology Today covers it well.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/cognitive-dissonance#understanding-cognitive-dissonance

One example from there:

If a woman reads that her favorite politician has done something immoral, she could conclude that the charges have been invented by his enemies

Though I can't think of a politician that might apply to off the top of my head.

[Denbury Red]

If they sell Tom Lawrence they will easily raise enough

[Hxj]

Two recent quotes from the Derby Forum, posted at the same time.  These highlight precisely the gap in the thought processes ... 

That’s fine, except they [the EFL] seem to be suggesting that their internal rules are more important than UK insolvency legislation. And they are preventing us from exiting admin and paying creditors, including HMRC. I think they’re asking for trouble and I hope they get it.

and then:

A preferred bidder l understand is prepared to pay c£50m to satisfy the club’s creditors, which include MSD in full, football creditors in full (not inc. Boro and Wycombe), an agreed % to HMRC and 25% to unsecured creditors. 

Presumably the bit in bold is the bit to satisfy the EFL internal rules and it is irrelevant that the payments would be in breach of UK insolvency legislation?

Edited January 16, 2022 by Hxj

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

Looks like Jason Knight is out next - Derby County set to sell £8m captain Jason Knight | Irish Sport | The Sunday Times (thetimes.co.uk)

However selling him would mean that Derby would have enough cash to last the season.

Not sure anyone would pay £8m when they are seeing Shinne transfer get accepted for £30k.

13 minutes ago, Denbury Red said:

If they sell Tom Lawrence they will easily raise enough

Is he the one rumoured to be going to Boro for £100k or is that another player?  Losing track during these fire sales!

[REDOXO]

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Not sure anyone would pay £8m when they are seeing Shinne transfer get accepted for £30k.

Is he the one rumoured to be going to Boro for £100k or is that another player?  Losing track during these fire sales!

Yeah. Fire sale being the Operative term. 8m for a club on the brink. We sold Tom Richie to Sunderland and Gerry Gow to Man City for a fraction of their value 41 years ago. 
 

The best Derby can hope for is a bidding war on a player whose value decreases every minute closer we get to Jan 2nd without a takeover deal. 

Edited January 16, 2022 by REDOXO

[ExiledAjax]

47 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Even if I could accept that argument, the HMRC bill has nothing to do with anyone apart from Morris. And for that we are all paying. The HMRC bit, for someone with 500m does make me  a little agitated . THe issue with the EFL is marginal in these respects, as we are all in the same boat. It is the fact he took the ground and failed to pay HMRC that really should upset them. If he hands over the ground, others will take on the HMRC and liability of being sued by other clubs. The issues with Boro and WW are more complex but why would anyone go to Derby with all of these issues unanswered by Morris. Maybe he is bankrupt and not worth 500m . I don't know. But HE did know what he was doing. 

And I totally agree with you.

[martnewts]

9 hours ago, Hxj said:

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).

Thanks for the rules on payments to HMRC which make perfect sense. Clearly it seems to me that  the EFL aren’t monitoring this as closely as they should be, I don’t recall any club that has been in difficulty publicly charged with any offence in connection with late payments to HMRC yet any club that ends up in admin frequently has significant HMRC debt and I would be certain that every club that has paid players late would also have paid the associated deductions late as well.

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, martnewts said:

Thanks for the rules on payments to HMRC which make perfect sense. Clearly it seems to me that  the EFL aren’t monitoring this as closely as they should be, I don’t recall any club that has been in difficulty publicly charged with any offence in connection with late payments to HMRC yet any club that ends up in admin frequently has significant HMRC debt and I would be certain that every club that has paid players late would also have paid the associated deductions late as well.

My gut feel is that Derby / Morris will’ve done all they can to stop it being picked up initially???

[martnewts]

It seems the rules give the EFL pretty much unfettered access to a clubs HMRC payment record but I guess if the don’t look then they don’t find out, I guess the matrix of differ companies involved also doesn’t make it as straightforward to monitor as it could be

[Hxj]

59 minutes ago, martnewts said:

I don’t recall any club that has been in difficulty publicly charged with any offence in connection with late payments to HMRC

The sanction is a Transfer Embargo.  Only recently has such detail been publicly available.  It could be that Derby were subject to such an embargo from sometime in 2019.

[REDOXO]

Just read this on the WWFC FORUM. I thought it was very sensible and well written from their perspective

 

Having spent half my career in insolvency related work I can tell you the following

a) no-one held a gun to MM's or DAFC's head and forced them to spend more than they could afford, this was a choice with obvious consequences if they failed to get to the promised land of the Premier League

b) Having failed to gain promotion the over spending chickens came home to roost which led to a conscious decision to change the amortisation method, take a loan from MDS, revalue the stadium & then sell it to MM. These were all ways to try to deliberatelu muddy the waters and avoid breaching the Profitability & Sustainability rules,

c) No one forced DCFC to not file their accounts with the EFL on time, it was their choice to file them late in an attempt (successful) to ensure points deductions were applied after the season thus staving off relegation for another season

d) It is likely HMRC could not chase (or sue) for some or all of the owing tax earlier due to the various Covid tax holidays and deferrals on offer over the last 18-20 months

e) HMRC are highly unlikely to be prepared to reduce their demand as they are not prepared to create a very expensive precedent amongst football clubs and others

f) our claim in the administration is perfectly reasonable and given they have not thrown it out; it appears the administrators accept it has some degree of foundation and legitimacy (this may or may not be at the behest of the EFL depends on which paper and which conspiracy theory you read)

g) WWFC/RC and the administrators will no doubt negotiate a settlement which I am guessing will likely be in region of £1.5-3m

h) The self admitted actions of others caused a clearly definable loss to WWFC. It is therefore absolutely right, reasonable and responsible for the directors of WWFC to protect the companies fiduciary interests as the directors of any other business would do.

i) It is rumoured that Ashley is already haggling with Gibson to get him to "reel his neck in" over the 'Boro claim - Ashley & Gibson go back a long way so this may well succeed.

j) NO ONE is suing DCFC at this point in time

P.S. I collaborated with/helped Raymond Snoddy at the FT when he uncovered & unravelled the spiders web of companies Maxwell had and used to defraud pretty much everyone but especially Mirror Group pensioners

[Loco Rojo]

11 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Just read this on the WWFC FORUM. I thought it was very sensible and well written from their perspective

 

Having spent half my career in insolvency related work I can tell you the following

a) no-one held a gun to MM's or DAFC's head and forced them to spend more than they could afford, this was a choice with obvious consequences if they failed to get to the promised land of the Premier League

b) Having failed to gain promotion the over spending chickens came home to roost which led to a conscious decision to change the amortisation method, take a loan from MDS, revalue the stadium & then sell it to MM. These were all ways to try to deliberatelu muddy the waters and avoid breaching the Profitability & Sustainability rules,

c) No one forced DCFC to not file their accounts with the EFL on time, it was their choice to file them late in an attempt (successful) to ensure points deductions were applied after the season thus staving off relegation for another season

d) It is likely HMRC could not chase (or sue) for some or all of the owing tax earlier due to the various Covid tax holidays and deferrals on offer over the last 18-20 months

e) HMRC are highly unlikely to be prepared to reduce their demand as they are not prepared to create a very expensive precedent amongst football clubs and others

f) our claim in the administration is perfectly reasonable and given they have not thrown it out; it appears the administrators accept it has some degree of foundation and legitimacy (this may or may not be at the behest of the EFL depends on which paper and which conspiracy theory you read)

g) WWFC/RC and the administrators will no doubt negotiate a settlement which I am guessing will likely be in region of £1.5-3m

h) The self admitted actions of others caused a clearly definable loss to WWFC. It is therefore absolutely right, reasonable and responsible for the directors of WWFC to protect the companies fiduciary interests as the directors of any other business would do.

i) It is rumoured that Ashley is already haggling with Gibson to get him to "reel his neck in" over the 'Boro claim - Ashley & Gibson go back a long way so this may well succeed.

j) NO ONE is suing DCFC at this point in time

P.S. I collaborated with/helped Raymond Snoddy at the FT when he uncovered & unravelled the spiders web of companies Maxwell had and used to defraud pretty much everyone but especially Mirror Group pensioners

k) what a complicated mess!

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, REDOXO said:

Just read this on the WWFC FORUM. I thought it was very sensible and well written from their perspective

 

Having spent half my career in insolvency related work I can tell you the following

a) no-one held a gun to MM's or DAFC's head and forced them to spend more than they could afford, this was a choice with obvious consequences if they failed to get to the promised land of the Premier League

b) Having failed to gain promotion the over spending chickens came home to roost which led to a conscious decision to change the amortisation method, take a loan from MDS, revalue the stadium & then sell it to MM. These were all ways to try to deliberatelu muddy the waters and avoid breaching the Profitability & Sustainability rules,

c) No one forced DCFC to not file their accounts with the EFL on time, it was their choice to file them late in an attempt (successful) to ensure points deductions were applied after the season thus staving off relegation for another season

d) It is likely HMRC could not chase (or sue) for some or all of the owing tax earlier due to the various Covid tax holidays and deferrals on offer over the last 18-20 months

e) HMRC are highly unlikely to be prepared to reduce their demand as they are not prepared to create a very expensive precedent amongst football clubs and others

f) our claim in the administration is perfectly reasonable and given they have not thrown it out; it appears the administrators accept it has some degree of foundation and legitimacy (this may or may not be at the behest of the EFL depends on which paper and which conspiracy theory you read)

g) WWFC/RC and the administrators will no doubt negotiate a settlement which I am guessing will likely be in region of £1.5-3m

h) The self admitted actions of others caused a clearly definable loss to WWFC. It is therefore absolutely right, reasonable and responsible for the directors of WWFC to protect the companies fiduciary interests as the directors of any other business would do.

i) It is rumoured that Ashley is already haggling with Gibson to get him to "reel his neck in" over the 'Boro claim - Ashley & Gibson go back a long way so this may well succeed.

j) NO ONE is suing DCFC at this point in time

P.S. I collaborated with/helped Raymond Snoddy at the FT when he uncovered & unravelled the spiders web of companies Maxwell had and used to defraud pretty much everyone but especially Mirror Group pensioners

Excellent summary.

[Hxj]

There is a lot of hot air going around currently, aided and abetted by some journalists who clearly don't research, about a reconstruction under the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Act 2020 (aka 'cross class cram down') and how this provides a loophole that Quantuma can exit Derby County from the Administration, not pay the debts and not suffer any consequences as the EFL have not updated their Regulations.

Firstly the 12 point penalty for entering Administration has already been applied.  Secondly any further penalty arises as a result of either not paying Football Creditors in full or not paying other creditors at least 25% immediately or 35% over a three year period.  It has nothing to do with how you exit Administration.

Secondly the reconstruction is not something you pull out of the air and impose on the creditors, it has to be sanctioned by a High Court judge.  What the legislation says is that where any class of creditor votes against the CVA and they would receive less in a Liquidation then a proposal may be imposed by the Court if they see it as just.  For a Reconstruction to give the outcome required, Football Creditors paid in full and all other creditors paid at least 25% upfront.

So a judge would need to hold that firstly 'Football Creditors' are a separate class of creditor distinct from other unsecured and non-preferential creditors and that special status elevates them above preferential creditors, contrary to all UK insolvency legislation ever enacted, on the basis that a group of people decided that that was convenient for them.

You would only get to a court case if HMRC objected to a CVA, and you can therefore assume that they would object to the Reconstruction proposal and you could rightly assume that they would appeal against any ruling by the High Court that they objected to.  As the legislation is new there is no doubt that any appeal would be heard.

The main problems here for Derby are this would all cost money, lots of it and time, lots of that too.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Talking of journalists, this is a nice balanced take. Not.

I expected better from one of his experience and standing.

That's not reporting, that's propaganda. Okay it's an opinion but I expected better.

Perhaps he should ask himself why it might be the case that Championship clubs and fans are so angry.

If they don't exit administration in the correct manner then a further - 15, and a season business plan next season.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Talking of journalists, this is a nice balanced take. Not.

I expected better from one of his experience and standing.

That's not reporting, that's propaganda. Okay it's an opinion but I expected better.

Perhaps he should ask himself why it might be the case that Championship clubs and fans are so angry.

If they don't exit administration in the correct manner then a further - 15, and a season business plan next season.

Quantuma were a bit bullish weren’t they when they got appointed!  I guess they get paid so they won’t care.

[Mr Popodopolous]

57 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Quantuma were a bit bullish weren’t they when they got appointed!  I guess they get paid so they won’t care.

Think they're trying to get the EFL Insolvency Policy etc amended to suit Derby, to test if their Insolvency Policy is relevant in the face of the amended Insolvency Regs.

Clearly Derby have learnt nothing would've thought a smidgen of understanding that goodwill will be important might have materialised. Looking at their fans below Henry Winter's Tweet those regulars on Social media still haven't gained an understanding of the EFL's requirements in these matters, appear to think - 21 and clean slate!

[Snufflelufagus]

If Derby do go bust and the results against them are void. How does that affect the league table? We'd lose 3 points as we beat them. Obviously depends how the other bottom teams faired against them as well 

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Talking of journalists, this is a nice balanced take. Not.

I expected better from one of his experience and standing.

That's not reporting, that's propaganda. Okay it's an opinion but I expected better.

Perhaps he should ask himself why it might be the case that Championship clubs and fans are so angry.

If they don't exit administration in the correct manner then a further - 15, and a season business plan next season.

Oh Henry. He's a clever one, posting this gets Derby fans onside, but he stops short of actually saying that more people should write to their MP. He stops short of blaming the Admins or EFL - in fact he simply blames Morris. A politician's post.

@Hxj thanks for the explanation regarding the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. A law I am not familiar with as it's been enacted since I stopped practicing English law. I've read the DLA Piper summary of it and it seems that the relevant part, the "cross class cramdown" is designed to prevent one single creditor from blocking an exit from insolvency. Seems fair, but I don't see anything in it to suggest it allows a company to exit administration freely and without paying a certain creditor. Also, as you rightly point out, going through this process involves the courts, and so that naturally involves time (two hearings I see) and cost on a scale that I doubt Derby can swallow. It would be a pyrrhic victory if any victory at all.

They are in this brutal cycle of needing to satisfy two sets of regulation if they want to continue their business. The EFL's football creditor rule may be more onerous than standard insolvency creditor waterfalls, it may be absurd in the face of them, but it is part of the rules that Derby must abide by if they want to not only be an operating company in England, but an operating company in England that runs an EFL football team. The EFL have to stand firm as otherwise they show themselves to be weak in the face of argument.  

DLA's paper on "cross class cramdown" is here https://www.dlapiper.com/en/uk/insights/publications/2020/10/restructuring-global-insight/restructuring-plan/

Ultimately, I personally think that Derby either have to get Gibson to accept a settlement, or to remove his Claim, or to allow the EFL panel to solve it, or they have to exit Admin and accept that they cannot be part of the EFL. So they remain an operating football club, and apply for membership of the non-league system. But I accept that they aren't going to get an investor to buy a non-league club and settle the other debts, and so that is phoenix club territory.

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Snufflelufagus said:

If Derby do go bust and the results against them are void. How does that affect the league table? We'd lose 3 points as we beat them. Obviously depends how the other bottom teams faired against them as well 

Two sides would go down, Barnsley and Peterborough both beat them as well so it's as you were. Reading would gain 2 pts on us, Cardiff 3, Hull 3.

Think Birmingham and someone else are below us but don't see them going down. Birmingham would also lose 3 pts.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Derby_Ram]

Afternoon all

There's a few other clubs forums I enjoy reading - this one in particular - and huge amounts in this thread are accurate.

As a Derby fan it's been a sobering time recently and the reality is whilst a great escape would be something we'd look back on for ever most of us just want a club, our club, to support next season.

The one bit I would like to correct - or clarify - is the vast amount of Derby fans do accept that Mel Morris is the reason behind the mess and could fix all this in two strokes: paying the HMRC and indemnifying any new owner against any claim by Boro or Wycombe.

Yes, you do still get people on twitter or some message boards who think the sun shines out of his backside but to say all our ire is directed at the EFL and not him (or Stephen Pearce our CFO who is still employed during admin) is inaccurate. There are more chants and abuse aimed at those two at games than the EFL.

Where we have an issue with the EFL (or maybe it's with Quantuma) is that the EFL and admins are releasing contradictory stories and for us it's vital our MPs or some other entirely independent body so we can flush out the real position and what needs doing (assuming MM doesn't do the decent thing. If anyone knows where he is please do share!).

There is a distrust of the EFL amongst fans which I do think is fair based on past events but ultimately we just want to know how we break the impasse between EFL/admins and will fight and engage whoever we can to do it.

As a club we ****** up. Our owner ****** up and the vast majority of fans went along for the ride. We've been punished so far. We need to exit admin correctly which will entail further hardships. But above all we just want a club next season.

So yeah it's a cathartic experience reading the thread but please don't think that the fans at the game are blaming anyone other than MM for this. We are. We also know though that in his continued absence and abdication we need the support of the EFL to survive.

 

[Hxj]

18 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Ultimately, I personally think that Derby either have to get Gibson to accept a settlement, or to remove his Claim, or to allow the EFL panel to solve it

However if they do get the matter resolved at minimum cost they then run into the HMRC debt problem ...

[exAtyeoMax]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Talking of journalists, this is a nice balanced take. Not.

I expected better from one of his experience and standing.

That's not reporting, that's propaganda. Okay it's an opinion but I expected better.

Perhaps he should ask himself why it might be the case that Championship clubs and fans are so angry.

If they don't exit administration in the correct manner then a further - 15, and a season business plan next season.

I thought the same. Shocking tweet

[slartibartfast]

1 minute ago, exAtyeoMax said:

I thought the same. Shocking tweet

I wonder if him (or his ilk) were so keen that City wouldn't die ,in 82 . nah **** 'em !

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Quantuma were a bit bullish weren’t they when they got appointed!  I guess they get paid so they won’t care.

Listening to Kieran Maguire / Price of Football pod….he said he’s spoken to people at Derby and that they are furious with Mel Morris. He then said surprised at Quantuma getting the gig as they’d only ever done one football insolvency before, but that none of the big insolvency companies would touch it with a barge pole!

Elephant in the room - Derby don’t own the stadium.  Why didn’t he put that into administration and sell the lot as a package.

Also Section 71 (???) allows an administrator to sell an asset linked to the company to help find a bidder.

Reference to Sheffield Utd’s out of court settlement from West Ham re Tevez in terms of the Wycombe / Boro compo claims.

Worth a listen @Mr Popodopolous, especially that last bit where if EFL judge claim not worthy, Wycombe and Boro could sue EFL and then all 71 clubs would be pissed off.  Suggests Mike Ashley or whoever should seek an indemnity from the administrators that they are not liable for the debts of Derby.  Mel could underwrite and it all goes away.

[Davefevs]

32 minutes ago, Snufflelufagus said:

If Derby do go bust and the results against them are void. How does that affect the league table? We'd lose 3 points as we beat them. Obviously depends how the other bottom teams faired against them as well 

Before Saturday’s round:

 

[ExiledAjax]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Suggests Mike Ashley or whoever should seek an indemnity from the administrators that they are not liable for the debts of Derby.  Mel could underwrite and it all goes away.

Admins will surely not give such an indemnity, even if it was separately underwritten by MM? Likewise for MM underwriting that indemnity is not so much different to just walking round to Gibson's house and leaving a suitcase full of cash on his porch. It would be some turnaround for MM to put himself on the hook for those kinds of claims? I'd be amazed.

I still think that indemnity plus insurance over it would be more realistic, although finding an insurer willing to cover it (at a premium that a bidder is prepared to pay) is another matter.

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Before Saturday’s round:

 

GD would also change wouldn't it.

[Hxj]

39 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Also Section 71 (???) allows an administrator to sell an asset linked to the company to help find a bidder.

Para 71 Sch B1 IA 1986 I think is the provision that he is referring to.  That allows an Administrator to sell property subject to a fixed charge to assist in the orderly Administration, as if the fixed charge didn't exist.  This is subject to a court order.

Not sure a judge would ever agree to someone selling property that belongs to someone else, where that company is not subject to any insolvency action.  

Plus you are back to time and costs in going to court.

[ExiledAjax]

6 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Not sure a judge would ever agree to someone selling property that belongs to someone else, where that company is not subject to any insolvency action.  

That's the issue so far as I see it. 

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, Derby_Ram said:

Afternoon all

There's a few other clubs forums I enjoy reading - this one in particular - and huge amounts in this thread are accurate.

As a Derby fan it's been a sobering time recently and the reality is whilst a great escape would be something we'd look back on for ever most of us just want a club, our club, to support next season.

The one bit I would like to correct - or clarify - is the vast amount of Derby fans do accept that Mel Morris is the reason behind the mess and could fix all this in two strokes: paying the HMRC and indemnifying any new owner against any claim by Boro or Wycombe.

Yes, you do still get people on twitter or some message boards who think the sun shines out of his backside but to say all our ire is directed at the EFL and not him (or Stephen Pearce our CFO who is still employed during admin) is inaccurate. There are more chants and abuse aimed at those two at games than the EFL.

Where we have an issue with the EFL (or maybe it's with Quantuma) is that the EFL and admins are releasing contradictory stories and for us it's vital our MPs or some other entirely independent body so we can flush out the real position and what needs doing (assuming MM doesn't do the decent thing. If anyone knows where he is please do share!).

There is a distrust of the EFL amongst fans which I do think is fair based on past events but ultimately we just want to know how we break the impasse between EFL/admins and will fight and engage whoever we can to do it.

As a club we ****** up. Our owner ****** up and the vast majority of fans went along for the ride. We've been punished so far. We need to exit admin correctly which will entail further hardships. But above all we just want a club next season.

So yeah it's a cathartic experience reading the thread but please don't think that the fans at the game are blaming anyone other than MM for this. We are. We also know though that in his continued absence and abdication we need the support of the EFL to survive.

 

 Nice to read something sensible.
 

On this page there is a lot of useful stuff that some less enlightened supporters of Derby County could use reading, along with the Derbyshire live journo who appears to not quite grasp the HMRC and EFL issues. (I’m not convinced about Quantama either). 
 

Good luck with your club! However My advice to supporters, creditors MPs etc is to get a lot less vocal about the rules of the EFL as applied to Derby for the future, as they are not new or targeting the club and start a campaign to get Mel Boy to stand up for his moral obligations toward the club the league and the sport!

I posted the thoughts of a Wycombe fan up this page which sums up the thoughts of their club and board and the situation 

Good Luck Again!
 

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Derby_Ram said:

Yes, you do still get people on twitter or some message boards who think the sun shines out of his backside but to say all our ire is directed at the EFL and not him (or Stephen Pearce our CFO who is still employed during admin) is inaccurate. There are more chants and abuse aimed at those two at games than the EFL.

Where we have an issue with the EFL (or maybe it's with Quantuma) is that the EFL and admins are releasing contradictory stories and for us it's vital our MPs or some other entirely independent body so we can flush out the real position and what needs doing (assuming MM doesn't do the decent thing. If anyone knows where he is please do share!).

Thanks for posting and welcome. We had a few Derby fans contributing earlier in the season, but they seem to have stopped. It's nice to get your perspective.

Firstly, you have my sympathy regarding the situation. As I posted earlier, I try not to tarnish all of Derby's fans with the same brush.

Secondly, on the section above, do you encounter much admission that if you view this situation objectively, the EFL are simply following their own rules? Rules which, if you want to participate in the EFL, need to be followed in addition to the normal insolvency laws that apply generally to companies in England. 

Finally, I would humbly suggest that your fans, when emailing their MPS, include a request that those MPs support Tracey Crouch MP's calls in the Fan Led Review to create an independent regulator. In doing so you could really help to ensure that fans of clubs that fail in the future (and there will sadly be such clubs) can benefit from a properly established "entirely independent body" to oversee matters, rather than having to write to MPs in the (in my opinion) futile hope that they can somehow influence things. Some of the things in that review could have helped stop Morris from, for example, selling Pride Park to himself.

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[chinapig]

56 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Where we have an issue with the EFL (or maybe it's with Quantuma) is that the EFL and admins are releasing contradictory stories and for us it's vital our MPs or some other entirely independent body so we can flush out the real position and what needs doing (assuming MM doesn't do the decent thing. If anyone knows where he is please do share!).

There is a distrust of the EFL amongst fans which I do think is fair based on past events but ultimately we just want to know how we break the impasse between EFL/admins and will fight and engage whoever we can to do it.

EDIT: this should be for @Derby_Ramof course.

Welcome and thanks for your reasoned thoughts. Can I ask for some clarfication?

On the first point above, Quantuma have been issuing bullish statements throughout. How many times have they claimed for instance that announcement of a preferred bidder was imminent and not delivered?

They now claim the EFL is acting against statute without specifying what statute and why. They also seem to have been rather taken aback that they have to prove they have funds for the club to fulfil its fixtures despite that being a given.

Essentially they seem to be saying what fans want to hear and based on some of his public statements not being entirely honest with Rooney. I would be questioning them ahead of the EFL. Indeed some of us would say the EFL dragged its feet for too long and let Morris string them along.

On the second point above what past events are you referring to that justify mistrusting the EFL? Are there specific ways in which they have acted against their regulations for instance or is this another version of the claim that there is a conspiracy against Derby?

Good luck to you in any event.

Edited January 17, 2022 by chinapig

[Derby_Ram]

Personally my email to my MP did mention the Tracey Crouch review on the basis that having something relevant an MP could link it to would do no harm. Others have taken a different approach in that whilst that is vital, in the here-and-now it is a specific issue to fix with time of the essence. However you'll find that most fans are on board with it.

I think anyone can drive a horse and cart through the EFLs rules. MM did by selling the stadium to himself and then rules get updated post the event to close a loophole. I also don't believe the EFL have updated their own rules post the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act and not everything within them fits the original purpose. I hate the prospect of a cross class cram down, and pray it becomes the last resort if the only alternative is liquidation, but if in the case the EFL blocks something a court has approved and other creditors support; what prevails? I don't want to go down that route but if further emphasises the need for an EFL which is fit for purpose.

To reply to the question of Wycombe - again the people I have sympathy for are the fans who haven't witnessed them in the Championship. As for the actual claim I personally don't have that much sympathy with it and feel we risk opening a Pandora's box: as a club we screwed up but a process got followed and we had our points deducted. This season. Did MM/Pearce mess around with delaying accounts? Yes. But also go back to the original EFL case which saw delays due to claims from of other clubs frivilous claims (Boro). So we cheated but not in a year WW were in the same division and our penalty was applied once due process had been followed. Impossible to prove but had we already have had points deducted I am sure last day of the season we'd have lost rather than scraping a draw. In that instance Wednesday would have stopped up so should they raise a claim too?!

Finally on the claims by other clubs - where does it stop? We lost in the Play-off final to QPR who failed FFP. Does this give Derby the right to recompense? Or Wigan who lost to QPR in the semi? What about the team that finished 7th and maybe could have got in the play-offs at QPRs expense? I don't know and for that reason primarily I personally think the club gets punished with their fines, pounts deductions, embargos or whatever but other clubs can't them claim. Whichever side of the fence you come down with on that on they'll be valid opposite viewpoints.

[Derby_Ram]

16 minutes ago, chinapig said:

On the first point above, Quantuma have been issuing bullish statements throughout. How many times have they claimed for instance that announcement of a preferred bidder was imminent and not delivered?

 

Totally agree about the admins. Unfortunately not willing to face up to local media and answer questions. Would love them to be open as possible and answer but it's not forthcoming. I do think without the Boro/WW cases we'd have a preferred bidder in place even though that doesn't guarantee we'd end up sorting this it's the next step. Either way they're not covering themselves in glory at all and I feel for Rooney who has been fed a load of bull and still working wonders. But, where we are as a club now, what is easier to gain traction with media, MPs and other fans? Highlighting the EFL who every fan is aware of as opposed to a bunch of Admins who 99% of people in Derby couldn't name let alone anywhere else. When you're desperate you'll do whatever it takes to get someone to take note and the last couple of days it seems to be beginning.

 

24 minutes ago, chinapig said:

On the second point above what past events are you referring to that justify mistrusting the EFL? Are there specific ways in which they have acted against their regulations for instance or is this another version of the claim that there is a conspiracy against Derby?

Where do you want to start?!?!

I could point to peculiarities in the original case brought against us but you'd accuse me of it being part of a conspiracy!

I will use Derby as a case in point though. Do you trust them as fit for purpose for letting the situation go on as long as it did? Do you think they did everything in their powers to support Bury and Macclesfield? If so I'll hold my hands up :).

[Hxj]

This from Andrew Bridgen MP sums up the position neatly - Looks like Quantuma need to do some reworking of their position.

 

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, Hxj said:

This from Andrew Bridgen MP sums up the position neatly - Looks like Quantuma need to do some reworking of their position.

 

Second time in a week he’s talked some sense, which adds up to twice in his life!

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

Afternoon all

There's a few other clubs forums I enjoy reading - this one in particular - and huge amounts in this thread are accurate.

As a Derby fan it's been a sobering time recently and the reality is whilst a great escape would be something we'd look back on for ever most of us just want a club, our club, to support next season.

The one bit I would like to correct - or clarify - is the vast amount of Derby fans do accept that Mel Morris is the reason behind the mess and could fix all this in two strokes: paying the HMRC and indemnifying any new owner against any claim by Boro or Wycombe.

Yes, you do still get people on twitter or some message boards who think the sun shines out of his backside but to say all our ire is directed at the EFL and not him (or Stephen Pearce our CFO who is still employed during admin) is inaccurate. There are more chants and abuse aimed at those two at games than the EFL.

Where we have an issue with the EFL (or maybe it's with Quantuma) is that the EFL and admins are releasing contradictory stories and for us it's vital our MPs or some other entirely independent body so we can flush out the real position and what needs doing (assuming MM doesn't do the decent thing. If anyone knows where he is please do share!).

There is a distrust of the EFL amongst fans which I do think is fair based on past events but ultimately we just want to know how we break the impasse between EFL/admins and will fight and engage whoever we can to do it.

As a club we ****** up. Our owner ****** up and the vast majority of fans went along for the ride. We've been punished so far. We need to exit admin correctly which will entail further hardships. But above all we just want a club next season.

So yeah it's a cathartic experience reading the thread but please don't think that the fans at the game are blaming anyone other than MM for this. We are. We also know though that in his continued absence and abdication we need the support of the EFL to survive.

 

Afternoon and welcome. I hope Derby survive off the pitch- nice to hear a more balanced view.

DCFCFans is an interesting read though without having a go at you as you clearly have a more balanced position, some of the cognitive dissonance on there are astonishing if I'm honest and have been about these issues since they first arose...I don't want to tar all Derby fans with the same brush though and there are some posters whose finance stuff I enjoy reading on there too.

Are social media and DCFCFans an outsized minority then? There has been some blame attached on there yes but otoh plenty of disgraceful comments about Gibson eg too. I dunno perhaps the loudest voices get the biggest say.

Yes, there are contradictory stories- they are clearly at loggerheads.

I totally get the wanting to survive- and yes there is an impasse- you say there is a big distrust of the EFL but they have their own interests to uphold as well. Interests might be the wrong word but position- they can't be seen to be giving Derby preferential treatment in the sense of waiving certain regulations. They have to uphold spirit and letter I expect.

I should add too, some of the plans don't help- Nixon although it could have been poorly reported, suggested Appleby wants it heard at the CAS. That flies in the face of. all such disputes being heard via the EFL system..

I should also add, sorry to pile it on a bit but the way that Quantuma have acted- let alone Mel- hasn't really smacked of taking ownership. Okay they accepted the deductions but the cases to avoid were thin and time plus costly legal battles were not on Derby's side. Support of the EFL maybe needed but Mel and Quantuma as well as a sizeable minority- maybe an outsized one- have burnt an awful lot of goodwill IMO. In order to gain a certain level of support don't Derby need to be seeking to rebuild goodwill and trust with relevant parties?

I'll post bits of the relevant Regs later.

[Midred]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Second time in a week he’s talked some sense, which adds up to twice in his life!

He didn't include Morris putting his hand in his pocket?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Otoh, ******** like some below on this Twitter thread really test my sympathy- the question is are they an outsized minority?

Out of touch PL fans certainly seem more sympathetic than Championship fans who know the ins and outs a bit better.

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, Derby_Ram said:

Personally my email to my MP did mention the Tracey Crouch review on the basis that having something relevant an MP could link it to would do no harm. Others have taken a different approach in that whilst that is vital, in the here-and-now it is a specific issue to fix with time of the essence. However you'll find that most fans are on board with it.

I think anyone can drive a horse and cart through the EFLs rules. MM did by selling the stadium to himself and then rules get updated post the event to close a loophole. I also don't believe the EFL have updated their own rules post the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act and not everything within them fits the original purpose. I hate the prospect of a cross class cram down, and pray it becomes the last resort if the only alternative is liquidation, but if in the case the EFL blocks something a court has approved and other creditors support; what prevails? I don't want to go down that route but if further emphasises the need for an EFL which is fit for purpose.

To reply to the question of Wycombe - again the people I have sympathy for are the fans who haven't witnessed them in the Championship. As for the actual claim I personally don't have that much sympathy with it and feel we risk opening a Pandora's box: as a club we screwed up but a process got followed and we had our points deducted. This season. Did MM/Pearce mess around with delaying accounts? Yes. But also go back to the original EFL case which saw delays due to claims from of other clubs frivilous claims (Boro). So we cheated but not in a year WW were in the same division and our penalty was applied once due process had been followed. Impossible to prove but had we already have had points deducted I am sure last day of the season we'd have lost rather than scraping a draw. In that instance Wednesday would have stopped up so should they raise a claim too?!

Finally on the claims by other clubs - where does it stop? We lost in the Play-off final to QPR who failed FFP. Does this give Derby the right to recompense? Or Wigan who lost to QPR in the semi? What about the team that finished 7th and maybe could have got in the play-offs at QPRs expense? I don't know and for that reason primarily I personally think the club gets punished with their fines, pounts deductions, embargos or whatever but other clubs can't them claim. Whichever side of the fence you come down with on that on they'll be valid opposite viewpoints.

In summary
 

Yes Mel Morris did think he could drive a horse and cart through the rules (many many many of them) and avoid the consequences for as long as it took for a Derby County promotion. 
 

In order for Derby to remain in the EFL they must comply with the rules showing sustainability to the end of the season and the rules regarding claims against them regardless of what they need to comply with to emerge from insolvency! In theory Derby could emerge with new ownership but be expelled from the EFL for non compliance of their rules. The issues are separate but not unrelated. 
 

Derby County could have made a claim against QPR and tested FFP although the circumstances were different, they did not.

As stated earlier the issues surrounding Derby it’s accounts it’s buy back of ground it’s non payment of tax etc etc etc go back years. 
 

The issue is Mel Morris. Your club is likely to be paying for him for years and patience is now obviously very thin in some areas. 

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Derby_Ram said:

Totally agree about the admins. Unfortunately not willing to face up to local media and answer questions. Would love them to be open as possible and answer but it's not forthcoming. I do think without the Boro/WW cases we'd have a preferred bidder in place even though that doesn't guarantee we'd end up sorting this it's the next step. Either way they're not covering themselves in glory at all and I feel for Rooney who has been fed a load of bull and still working wonders. But, where we are as a club now, what is easier to gain traction with media, MPs and other fans? Highlighting the EFL who every fan is aware of as opposed to a bunch of Admins who 99% of people in Derby couldn't name let alone anywhere else. When you're desperate you'll do whatever it takes to get someone to take note and the last couple of days it seems to be beginning.

 

Where do you want to start?!?!

I could point to peculiarities in the original case brought against us but you'd accuse me of it being part of a conspiracy!

I will use Derby as a case in point though. Do you trust them as fit for purpose for letting the situation go on as long as it did? Do you think they did everything in their powers to support Bury and Macclesfield? If so I'll hold my hands up :).

Thanks for the reply. I'd be interested in what peculiarities you mean nevertheless. There may be stuff I am unaware of after all.

I criticised the EFL in my previous post for dragging their feet, though Morris is still the one who wanted to delay as long as possible so is still the real culprit.

As to your wider point I am a long term critic of the EFL (some of my fellow posters think I am too mean to them) not least because they have allowed too many shysters to own clubs - Bury and Macclesfield indeed being cases in point.

My key criticism was allowing clubs to "sell" stadiums on a bogus basis to raise money to "live the dream" which was storing up trouble as Derby have found. Though I was interested to hear Rick Parry say recently that the Premier League insisted on that as a condition of their so called solidarity payments.

There have been improvements to the regs under Parry but the best hope lies with implementing as far as possible the recommendations of the Crouch review imo.

Edited January 17, 2022 by chinapig

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

Personally my email to my MP did mention the Tracey Crouch review on the basis that having something relevant an MP could link it to would do no harm. Others have taken a different approach in that whilst that is vital, in the here-and-now it is a specific issue to fix with time of the essence. However you'll find that most fans are on board with it.

Excellent, thank you.

2 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

I also don't believe the EFL have updated their own rules post the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act and not everything within them fits the original purpose.

Are specific updates needed? Are you saying that the EFL Regs and EFL articles of association are not valid because they don't specifically mention the CIGA 2020? 

The CIGA 2020 makes amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986, and the definition of 'Insolvency Act' in the EFL's Regs (and articles of association) is "...the Insolvency Act 1986 and any statutory modification or reenactment thereof for the time being in force". So the definition can be said to include the relevant parts of the CIGA 2020 by reference, as that new Act includes statutory modifications to the IA 1986. Therefore for example the changes to Schedule B1 of the IA 1986, are actually already incorporated into the passages of the EFL Regs that refer to Schedule B1 (if relevant). Now of course a forensic analysis of the references and items within the EFL Regulations, and comparing those to the CIGA 2020, may show that further amendment is desirable, but I'll leave that to those lawyers who are paid to do that review. 

Ultimately Derby's stumbling block doesn't seem to be exiting administration, rather it is how to exit and simultaneously satisfy the EFL that you can still legitimately be a member of the EFL.

Edited January 17, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

I might ask, when @Derby_Ram mentions peculiarities in the case, are you referring to? 

A) The notification of the 2nd charge about 2 years ago? I am pretty sure there was something in the original hearing about matters being open to review. Indeed with some FFP issues I'd argue that is the only sensible way- because they can be complex issues that take a lot of legal analysis 

B) The overturning of the 2nd Charge on Appeal and the order to restate? Could've been luck of the draw, some IDCs often are but accounting professionals have for a while queried Residual Value from an FRS 102 perspective.

On a side note, a general q to all. Is that 2nd bit ie the judgement that held Derby in breach of FRS 102 something that gives more grounds to sue than a mere overspend but otherwise compliant in every other respect?

Unless people have misquoted the guy, did Mel Morris not admit to holding back accounts? If he deliberately held back on putting in accounts in a timely manner, no accounts=no chance to fairly assess FFP compliance. Because it was a 2 part process:

1) Restate accounts on demand. Can be done quickly.

2) Assess restated accounts for an FFP breach, had Derby produced them quickly I think they go down last season.

I also should add, you probably don't want to hear it but unless it's been extended (again) the updated June orders remain in play and Derby are due to get the last 6 years worth of accounts, some restated some restated but seen for the first time to the EFL by 4pm 31st January 2022.

Bottom line is accounts if not already done within a fortnight for the last 6 seasons, and publish last seasons accounts if not at CH on the website by 31st March 2022, and presumably this seasons P&S numbers by end of February, start of March 2022.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

A moot point now, but did Mel think minus 9 would threaten their hopes of staying in the Champ, therefore why not go the whole hog, take minus 12, and then start again in Lg1?

Because as it stands minus 9 would be a completely different ball-game!

[phantom]

The EFL have just released the following statement 

 

Further to a number of recent reports, social media comment and fan communication in relation to ongoing matters at Derby County Football Club, the EFL wishes to clarify its position on several points, which are addressed by way of a series of Questions and Answers with the EFL Chief Executive Trevor Birch.

 

1. What information does the EFL believe is currently outstanding from the Administrators, and why is it needed?

The EFL is taking proactive steps to work with the Administrators to find sensible solutions that will see the Club secure a long-term future and meet the requirements as set out in EFL Regulations and the League’s Insolvency Policy.  

In line with Article 4 of the Articles of Association, a Club is issued a Notice of Withdrawal when an insolvency event occurs, i.e., administration. The Article also grants the Board discretion as to whether to allow membership to continue and if so on what basis. 

Under administration, Clubs are given an opportunity to restructure their affairs and the EFL’s role is to preserve the integrity of the competition whilst also acknowledging the important roles Clubs play within their communities. 

Where the Club is served with the Notice of Withdrawal part-way through a playing season, the Club is required to continue to abide by the EFL Regulations, honour all tickets purchased (including season tickets) relating to the remainder of the season, and provide confirmation of funding to indicate sufficient resources to ensure the Club can complete its fixtures for the remainder of the season. 

On appointment the Administrators were unable to provide the confirmation of funding, but the EFL allowed the Club to continue whilst they sought to finalise their plans.  Their work has been funded in the interim through a combination of cost savings and external borrowing.  

We have revisited the funding requirements with the Administrators on a number of occasions since their appointment, and last week the EFL asked the Administrators for updated details on how the Club plans to continue to trade whilst in administration, including a funding plan that will enable it to complete the current season and all remaining fixtures in the 2021/22 campaign. 

The response was to highlight the specific figure Derby County needed in order to fulfil its fixture obligations for the remainder of 2021/22 and whilst potential funding options were tabled by the Administrators, they could not give the necessary assurances that the funding was guaranteed to enable the Club to finish the season. 

As a consequence, the League made the decision that the Club should not be permitted to register any new players until the necessary funding was in place. The deadline for provision of the funded plans was further extended to 1 February 2022.

 

2. Is there a deadline the Club and Administrators must work to?

The maximum period for any Club to remain in administration is 18 months and no Club is allowed to start more than one season in administration. As set out above, we have granted an additional extension for the provision of a funding plan through until the end of the current Season. This provides the Club with a further opportunity to demonstrate the necessary funding, and it has a number of options available to it (as do all Clubs), for example from a preferred bidder, further cost savings or player sales during the remainder of the January transfer window.   

 

3. What is the Insolvency Policy? 

No insolvent Club has an absolute right to continue in membership, and on entering insolvency a Club is served with a Notice of Withdrawal of the membership (currently suspended).  The EFL’s Insolvency Policy provides guidance on how the EFL will address issues that might arise with a Club in administration. The aims of the Policy are to try and ensure a continuation of a football Club, the settlement of all football debts and the satisfaction of creditors. If a buyer cannot be found who can meet the requirements for continued membership, then the Club may liquidate, and its membership withdrawn. The Policy provides discretion for the EFL Board as to how to deal with any particular Club and does not cover every eventuality. 

This reserves the right to review and amend the procedures for each individual case in line with the League’s Articles of Association and Regulations. 

Part of the League’s rationale for requiring the settlement of creditors is to preserve competition integrity. The Policy, and associated regulations, have been agreed by Clubs and seek to act as a disincentive to individuals from running Clubs in such a way that they gain a financial advantage over competitors and subsequently rely on insolvency legislation to compromise the unpaid debts incurred. 

 

4. What is the preferred bidder status situation? 

Throughout the administration process the EFL has engaged with the Administrators as they seek to market the Club for sale and identify any potential bidders who wish to buy the Club. 

Part of this process includes advising the Administrators in respect of the EFL’s requirements under the conditions of its Owners’ and Directors’ Test and the requirement for any potential owner to provide proof of future funding for two seasons.

The EFL has already met with two bidders alongside the Administrators but further notes their recent reference to a third bidder.

It is for the Administrators, and not the EFL, to determine which bidder they prefer to work with and seek to conclude an agreement with for the sale of the Club and who must then work to meet the EFL’s requirements under the Articles and Insolvency Policy.

The EFL has acted promptly and diligently throughout its dialogue with the Administrators but still awaits a further update from them as to the preferred bidder status. For confidentiality reasons, the League is unable to provide ongoing public comment on any potential interested parties and/or the status of any bid. 

 

5. Why has the EFL allowed Middlesbrough and Wycombe to threaten legal action against Derby County, and is this preventing the sale of the Club?

Middlesbrough FC commenced its claims against the Club over 12 months ago in arbitration proceedings, the framework for which is set out in EFL Regulations. The EFL is not a party to those proceedings and nor does it have a role in determining the outcome of them. As the arbitration proceedings are private and confidential, we are unable to provide any further detail.  

The EFL is aware that the Administrators have also received notice of claims from Wycombe Wanderers FC of a similar nature to those of Middlesbrough FC, but the EFL has not received full details of them.

The current situation remains challenging as Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers consider their claims should be protected under the terms of the Insolvency Policy. The Administrators disagree. Further, as those claims are not yet determined the Administrators and bidders have no clarity on the size of any (if any) liability. That has implications for exiting administration, and ultimately the Club being able to retain its membership status. 

We are aware that Derby County consider the claims to be spurious, but despite this, the current bidders appear unwilling to assume the risk of defending them.  In contrast, Middlesbrough FC and Wycombe Wanderers consider the claims to have merit, and that their rights will be adversely affected if Derby County can extinguish or compromise the claims using the insolvency process.

The EFL is keen to try and resolve the current impasse. The EFL invited each of the Administrators, Middlesbrough FC, and Wycombe Wanderers to make submissions on this point last week, and we are now in the process of reviewing those submissions with a view to identifying a route to resolve the conflict which exists between the respective positions of, on the one hand, Derby County, and on the other Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers.

 

6. Why doesn’t the EFL take a definitive decision on the issue?

As outlined above this is a complicated set of circumstances that requires consideration of the EFL’s broader role as the body that oversees 72 member Clubs and not just those Clubs that may be affected at any one time. The potential impact of a claim or indeed claims against the EFL would not only have direct effect on the League and the members involved but also the remainder of the membership given the way the EFL is constituted. To try and simplify what is a complex legal position is not simple or straightforward but we are committed to finding an appropriate solution and providing clarity on the issue as soon as possible. 

 

7. Is the EFL acting unlawfully?

To be clear, the EFL is not and would not, attempt to overrule ‘statutory law’. There is a clear difference of opinion between competing parties as to the correct application of our Articles and Insolvency Policy and that needs resolving. The fact that this is open to some interpretation means this process remains challenging, but the EFL is working to achieve clarity as quickly as possible. For the avoidance of any doubt the League is not making any attempts to block any sale of Derby County, but instead attempting to do the right thing by all parties.

 

8. Is there a conflict of interest at EFL Board level? What involvement do all Board members have in decisions relating to Derby County?

Any EFL Board members conflicted on any matter do not take part in any discussion and are asked to leave the meeting. In addition, any Director who is conflicted does not receive any board papers in respect of the conflicted matter. The position on whether any director is conflicted is reviewed on a meeting-by-meeting basis. At present there are two Board Directors conflicted in respect of the matter with Derby County and as such do not participate or engage in any of the decisions. 

 

9. Why is the Club unable to sign players in the transfer window?

Given the uncertainty around future funding, the League has advised that no extensions or new player registrations will be permitted, and this position had already been communicated to the Club prior to the Administrator’s latest statement on Friday 14 January. The EFL will continue to work with the Club as it updates its forecasts.

 

10. What is the EFL doing to support Derby County and its supporters through the current process?

Suggestions the EFL want Derby County relegated or expelled are completely fabricated and entirely false. The EFL continues to advise the Club and its Administrators in respect of all current requirements. This includes the Administrator’s obligations in respect of a funding plan and providing all necessary clarity on the credibility of any potential investors in the context of its regulations. The EFL understands it continues to be a challenging and worrying period for everybody associated with Derby County, especially the staff and supporters, and it is our intention to continue to work proactively with the Administrators and relevant stakeholders to find a process which will give clarity quickly. 

 

11. Does the EFL have a vendetta against Derby County?

The EFL has no vendetta against any of its member Clubs. The role of the League is to act in accordance with its rules, and to seek to find solutions in respect of this regulatory framework. For example, The League is required to obtain the necessary information, specifically that is outlined in its Insolvency Policy in respect of Derby County’s potential exit from administration, to ensure parity and a level playing field for all its members. It is understood that Derby County fans will be concerned at developments at their Club, but equally the League must consider the interests of all other Clubs. Clearly there is a balance between investment into our Clubs and not stifling ambition, but that cannot be at any cost. That is why financial rules are in place that all Clubs agree to, and the EFL are tasked with upholding and sanctioning any breaches. It is also worth clarifying that, regarding the sporting sanctions which were imposed this season, 12 points were deducted as consequence of the Club itself appointing Administrators. A further 9 points were agreed with the Club, by way of an Agreed Decision which was ratified by an Independent Disciplinary Commission Chair as per the requirements of the  EFL Regulations after the Club admitted to breaches of the EFL’s P&S rules.

[Davefevs]

Just saw it on twitter.

Only one side of the story, but explains the Wycombe / Boro stuff well.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, phantom said:

The current situation remains challenging as Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers consider their claims should be protected under the terms of the Insolvency Policy. The Administrators disagree. Further, as those claims are not yet determined the Administrators and bidders have no clarity on the size of any (if any) liability. That has implications for exiting administration, and ultimately the Club being able to retain its membership status. 

We are aware that Derby County consider the claims to be spurious, but despite this, the current bidders appear unwilling to assume the risk of defending them.  In contrast, Middlesbrough FC and Wycombe Wanderers consider the claims to have merit, and that their rights will be adversely affected if Derby County can extinguish or compromise the claims using the insolvency process.

This answered my main outstanding question. I couldn't see how an unresolved pending claim could be considered to come under the definition of "Football Creditor". The definition states that to be an FC a payment must be "due", and a pending, unresolved claim is only a potential payment, not one that is due.

Essentially it seems that the EFL don't want a situation where Derby exit Admin, the Boro claim is successful, and there's then questions over whether all "Football Crditors" are/were being paid. I suspect no bidder wants that either. 

It's arguable, and therefore is being argued.

Doesn't change my view that indemnities underwritten by insurance or some other form of guarantee (cough *Mel Morris* cough) are the commercial solution.

1 hour ago, phantom said:

11. Does the EFL have a vendetta against Derby County?

Ps. I cannot believe they even entertained or answered this one.

[chinapig]

The Guardian reports that there will be three urgent questions in the Commons starting at 12.30pm: on the role of the military dealing with Channel crossings; on fraud in coronavirus grant schemes; and on Derby County Football Club.

[Hxj]

Somebody else putting the boot into Quantuma.

Club Statement: Derby County (mfc.co.uk)

 

A statement from Middlesbrough FC...
MFC is aware of the media speculation regarding its claim against Derby County and has read last night's statement by the EFL. The club wishes to ensure that, to the extent possible given that the arbitration claim is confidential, the full facts are in the public domain, rather than ill-informed speculation.

Why are MFC bringing a claim now?
MFC became aware that Derby County was cheating under the P&S Rules during 2018/19. MFC first intimated a claim against Derby County in May 2019 immediately following the end of the 2018/19 season. The claim was held in abeyance whilst the EFL Disciplinary Proceedings against Derby County were followed through to a conclusion. MFC then sent Derby County a Letter Before Action in the autumn of 2020 and started arbitration proceedings against Derby County in January 2021. Derby County used various procedural tactics to seek to delay the proceedings and as a result the claim has yet to be finally determined. MFC is not responsible for the delay. Had it been finally determined, and an award made in favour of MFC, there would be no dispute that MFC would be a Football Creditor.

It is said the claim has no prospect of success so why continue?
Given that the claim is confidential, MFC does not understand how people can assert it has no prospect of success. MFC is a commercial organisation and would not pursue frivolous litigation at huge costs unless it had been advised that there is a good prospect of success. The claim is not limited merely to the amortisation issue in respect of which a Disciplinary Panel have already found Derby County to have breached the P&S Rules. Without breaking the confidentiality of the proceedings, in simple terms, MFC allege Derby County and its directors systematically cheated under the P&S Rules and that such cheating affects the integrity of the competition. At least two clubs, namely Middlesbrough and Wycombe, were directly affected by the cheating, albeit in different seasons. In simple terms so far as MFC is concerned, had Derby County not cheated, MFC would have been in the play-offs. However, Derby County did cheat and, as a result, MFC lost the opportunities that arise as result of that.

How can MFC hold the administrators and EFL to ransom in demanding that its claim, reported to be worth over £40m, be met in full as a condition of the share in the EFL transferring?
That is not what MFC has said. The club believes that it is a Football Creditor but accepts that, as things stand, the size of the debt due is unknown. All MFC have said is that any new owner should be required to honour the final decision of the Arbitration Panel on behalf of Derby County once that is known. There is a certain inconsistency to the arguments presented by the administrators. On the one hand, it is said that there is no prospect of the claim succeeding, in which case there is no risk for a new owner. But, on the other hand, the administrator apparently cannot find a new owner because they will not proceed without the claim being settled due, presumably, to the fact that it has merit and might succeed. If the claim has no prospect of success MFC does not understand why a new owner would resolve the matter by accepting that the arbitration decision should be honoured. Of course, if the claim has a value as MFC believes, there is no reason why MFC should not, as a Football Creditor, be entitled to recover the monies due to it.

Why is Steve Gibson refusing to compromise the claim?
MFC has made it clear since the administrators were appointed that it was happy to discuss how the claim is dealt with and whether a compromise could be reached with the administrators or the new owner. The administrators contacted MFC in November 2021. However, there has been no contact at all since then, until this week. The administrators ignored MFC’s correspondence from November and MFC’s offer to continue engagement. MFC has made clear that it does not wish to see Derby County fall into liquidation, and that MFC is happy to be realistic in its expectations in order for Derby County to exit administration. However, it is ultimately up to the administrators or the new owner to put a firm and realistic proposal forward or merely agree that MFC’s claim, when finally determined, will be met in full by the new owners.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Hxj

[ExiledAjax]

9 minutes ago, Hxj said:

All MFC have said is that any new owner should be required to honour the final decision of the Arbitration Panel on behalf of Derby County once that is known. There is a certain inconsistency to the arguments presented by the administrators. On the one hand, it is said that there is no prospect of the claim succeeding, in which case there is no risk for a new owner. But, on the other hand, the administrator apparently cannot find a new owner because they will not proceed without the claim being settled due, presumably, to the fact that it has merit and might succeed. If the claim has no prospect of success MFC does not understand why a new owner would resolve the matter by accepting that the arbitration decision should be honoured. Of course, if the claim has a value as MFC believes, there is no reason why MFC should not, as a Football Creditor, be entitled to recover the monies due to it.

When put like that...they really do have Derby bent over a barrel.

10 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The administrators contacted MFC in November 2021. However, there has been no contact at all since then, until this week. The administrators ignored MFC’s correspondence from November and MFC’s offer to continue engagement.

And yeh, putting the boot firmly in Q as well.

[1960maaan]

Those claims are interesting.

Derby cheated and cost M'boro a playoff place, potentially £m's. They Cheated and prevented Wycombe a chance of staying up, potentially £m's.

With that hanging over the Club, you can understand a but of hesitance on the new , or potential owners , to go ahead. You can see why Administrators say the  case has no merit, trying to get the deal done. What would happen if the Deal went through , and the case went M'boro & Wycombe's way. Would the New Co have any comeback with the Admin, would it count as being mislead in the deal, and could they seek redress? 

Seems some very dodgy ground.