Derby County

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

Quantuma have really screwed this! By taking the debate public, they've invited MFC to rebut them in public. That PR from MFC looks more credible than any presentation I've seen before and undermines the arguments they've made to potential buyers (and their reputation with those buyers) that the claim has no merit. And makes a deal less likely.

The EFL's statement earlier makes clear that there are two serious bidders when Quantuma have said 3. Either one of them is only at a preliminary stage, or they're exagerating the level of interest. Either way, they're being caught-out in public and the price competition that they're trying to stimulate is further undermined.

Can anyone estimate the value of this work to Quantuma? Very roughly obviously. And I read - perhaps here - that other firms had turned the work down. Beyond reputational damage, is there some risk to Quantuma?

[Midred]

15 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

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.

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

The efl could have deducted a point from Derby who would have been relegated and Wycombe would have been one less problem to them. Embarrassment catching up with the efl for not dealing with this sooner.

[ExiledAjax]

25 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

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.

This is why you have the indemnities within the agreement that covers the sale of the Club. Essentially the sellers make promises about the state of the Company, these are called warranties. One such warranty might be that "The Company does not have any outstanding claims against it."

In this case this is untrue, and so the sellers make what is called a disclosure against that warranty. They explain to the buyer that in fact there are claims outstanding, and they give as much detail as they can. In doing so they make the buyer fully aware of the risk that they are taking on.

The buyer then says "oh interesting, well I'd like some protection against that". And so we get to an indemnity. In basic terms the indemnity says that if the claim succeeds, the buyer can come back to the seller and reclaim the costs of paying the final award to Boro and WW. So it keeps the old owner on the hook for issues that happened on their watch, but also allows the company to be sold and for the buyer to take it forward. Indemnities can cover the entire amount, or part of the amount, or have a cap. They can also have a lower limit or threshold, beneath which the buyer bears the costs - a bit like an insurance excess. They are flexible and can be tailored to the risk at hand. There will often be a general indemnity to cover anything that might come up, but you can have specific ones tailored to specific risks as well.

So in answer to your question "Would the New Co [the buyer] have any comeback with the Admin, would it count as being mislead in the deal, and could they seek redress?", no they wouldn't be misled in this case, but yes they would be able to seek redress, under the terms of the sale agreement.

What is happening here is that the Admins are struggling to agree that indemnity. No one wants to be on the hook for up to 40m. MFC's point is that if there's no risk of the claim succeeding, you can give the indemnity. The Admins say we don't need to give it as there's no risk of it succeeding. It's a classic argument around risks like this, and normally it ends up with a compromise - either the risk is taken out prior to the sale, or a carefully worded indemnity is put in place.

Edited January 18, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

35 minutes ago, Midred said:

The efl could have deducted a point from Derby who would have been relegated and Wycombe would have been one less problem to them. Embarrassment catching up with the efl for not dealing with this sooner.

2 pts- Derby would have survived on GD IIRC with a 1 point deduction.

I might also add, Derby might have delayed submission of the updated numbers and as I said at the time on the FFP thread, no accurately restated numbers=no possibility to deduct points for FFP.

Independent Panel who decided a £100k fine was suitable for the accounting breach, plus of course the far more significant order to restate the accounts- Derby dragged this out for as long as possible.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Wonder if that is a certain David from DCFCFans??

Simon Jordan puts him right anyway.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

Pauline Latham MP (Con, Mid Derbyshire) asked an urgent question in the House of Commons on Tuesday 18 January: "To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on matters of EFL (English Football League) governance surrounding the administration of Derby County FC."

An interesting chat, but broadly a load of hot air imo. A few MPs (mainly the members of the DCMS Committee such as Julian Knight and Clive Efford) seem to appreciate the nuances and the technicalities involved - the rub between legislation and the EFL regulations for example, or the struggle with the WW and Boro claims. 

I'm skeptical of any MP for Derby here. They are there to rep their constituents, and they should do so.  It's also obviously a piss-easy vote winner to stand up for the Club, and to regurgitate the arguments that fans and Quantuma have against the EFL. Doing the opposite would potentially cost them many votes, and a bucket load of PR, in their constituencies. Latham, Beckett, and the other Derby MPs certainly fall into that category.

However, the calls to give Derby leniency based on their history (league founders etc) are in my opinion superficial and should carry no weight at all. Nothing in the rules says that this is something that can or should be done. Just because a club won silverware once doesn't mean they should be treated preferably. Pompey were recent FA Cup winners when they went down. It happens.

Ultimately, it isn't part of the EFL's remit to 'protect' clubs. They run the competition that the clubs compete in, and work to ensure that the competition has integrity and legitimacy, but clubs are not franchises granted by the EFL, they are run by their owners as companies. The Bury MP speaks passionately, and I support and agree with much of what he says, but it is simply not the job of the EFL to bail clubs out or to save them for the sake of their communities.

The guy who picks out the WW and Boro claims gets it though. The answer is good as well, that a pragmatic answer should and can be found. But it is commercial, and is between Derby and Boro, or Derby and WW. It is not for the EFL to dictate the terms of that answer. Asking for that is mental, Derby fans seem to want the EFL to both simultaneously leave them alone, but also broker a solution. In general there seems to be some confusion over the role, responsibilities, and remit of the EFL in this matter.

Ultimately all the MPs can really do is put pressure on the parties to sort stuff. 

The whole thing is laced through with tangential discussions around the Fan Led Review. In fact it is used to deflect certain questions with "that will be addressed by the Review". It is interesting that Crouch met with Morris 'towards the end of the Review period' - so some time in mid 2021 I presume, and he reckoned that had a regulator been in place, Derby would be in a different situation.

Furthermore the Gov state they are working 'at pace' on it, and 'endorse in principal the implementation of the regulator'. They want to 'legislate as quickly as they can'. Labour pressing for faster movement on the matter - some point there given it's been nearly two months since publication and we've got no formal or detailed government response. It's not dead in the water.

Edited January 18, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Davefevs]

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Davefevs

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

Er...surely turning down the assured finance is the same as holding out?

Pedantry aside, they surely have to accept this at this point.

[Bristol Rob]

7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Er...surely turning down the assured finance is the same as holding out?

Pedantry aside, they surely have to accept this at this point.

Would it depend on if the offer was in cash, or paid in installments?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Nixon.

I do hope HMRC are not offering them a discount? Derby would certainly like it to be that way of course.

Time to pay could be okay provided no discount to the overall amount due.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

This is why you have the indemnities within the agreement that covers the sale of the Club. Essentially the sellers make promises about the state of the Company, these are called warranties. One such warranty might be that "The Company does not have any outstanding claims against it."

In this case this is untrue, and so the sellers make what is called a disclosure against that warranty. They explain to the buyer that in fact there are claims outstanding, and they give as much detail as they can. In doing so they make the buyer fully aware of the risk that they are taking on.

The buyer then says "oh interesting, well I'd like some protection against that". And so we get to an indemnity. In basic terms the indemnity says that if the claim succeeds, the buyer can come back to the seller and reclaim the costs of paying the final award to Boro and WW. So it keeps the old owner on the hook for issues that happened on their watch, but also allows the company to be sold and for the buyer to take it forward. Indemnities can cover the entire amount, or part of the amount, or have a cap. They can also have a lower limit or threshold, beneath which the buyer bears the costs - a bit like an insurance excess. They are flexible and can be tailored to the risk at hand. There will often be a general indemnity to cover anything that might come up, but you can have specific ones tailored to specific risks as well.

So in answer to your question "Would the New Co [the buyer] have any comeback with the Admin, would it count as being mislead in the deal, and could they seek redress?", no they wouldn't be misled in this case, but yes they would be able to seek redress, under the terms of the sale agreement.

What is happening here is that the Admins are struggling to agree that indemnity. No one wants to be on the hook for up to 40m. MFC's point is that if there's no risk of the claim succeeding, you can give the indemnity. The Admins say we don't need to give it as there's no risk of it succeeding. It's a classic argument around risks like this, and normally it ends up with a compromise - either the risk is taken out prior to the sale, or a carefully worded indemnity is put in place.

Yes you are correct. However the sale revenue raised in this case is likely to be nominal. Most money spent will be in paying off debt. Mel Morris in no way will indemnify Derby against the claims of Boro and WWFC out of his own pocket thus an impasse is reached with the sale agreement with all party’s 
 

The administrators have blown this big time. They want it both ways. Either the claim is valid and must be taken into consideration or it’s spurious and should not. They can’t scream both things simultaneously. 
 

Also In this case if the Boro action had been dealt with by Derby in the proper timeframe we would nor be here now. Particularly if Middlesbrough had lost as that would almost certainly put off Wycombe. 

Clock is ticking louder each day and if I were Gibson or Wycombe I would not back down. As the wise man said “there ain’t nothing more sophisticated than leverage”

 

[AnotherDerbyFan]

2 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

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.

Bristol City have as good, if not better claim than Boro, considering we beat in you in the run in, pretty much ending your Playoff hopes. If you won that game, you would have finished 6th.

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Bristol City have as good, if not better claim than Boro, considering we beat in you in the run in, pretty much ending your Playoff hopes. If you won that game, you would have finished 6th.

I've never really considered us to have had a claim given we finished 8th.

[exAtyeoMax]

Can Mel Morris be held to account? Prosecuted or something? 

[REDOXO]

11 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Bristol City have as good, if not better claim than Boro, considering we beat in you in the run in, pretty much ending your Playoff hopes. If you won that game, you would have finished 6th.

Yes. I would suggest it’s been discussed by SL and Mr Gibson. 

[ExiledAjax]

27 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Yes you are correct. However the sale revenue raised in this case is likely to be nominal. Most money spent will be in paying off debt. Mel Morris in no way will indemnify Derby against the claims of Boro and WWFC out of his own pocket thus an impasse is reached with the sale agreement with all party’s 

Agreed, and I should have said that what I described was the way things work in a 'standard' business sale - wherein you are selling a solvent, operational company. 

A buyer of an insolvent company will get much less in the way of promises, disclosures and indemnities. The attitude is that you're getting this company for peanuts, you know it's in a mess, deal with it. This gives the sellers a stronger position to resist the kind of indemnity that might solve the problem Derby have.

[REDOXO]

6 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Can Mel Morris be held to account? Prosecuted or something? 

Apparently not by Derby fans who are way to busy calling MPs and blaming the EFL Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers for the fallout from this little s*** **** actions!

The one thing that would get all supporters behind Derby County supporters was if their fans groups looked into what can be done to make Morris man up to his responsibilities instead of crying it’s not fair! 
 

NO IT BLOODY WAS NOT!

[1960maaan]

22 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Bristol City have as good, if not better claim than Boro, considering we beat in you in the run in, pretty much ending your Playoff hopes. If you won that game, you would have finished 6th.

Anyone got Steve's home number ??? 

[exAtyeoMax]

1 minute ago, REDOXO said:

Apparently not by Derby fans who are way to busy calling MPs and blaming the EFL Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers for the fallout from this little s*** **** actions!

The one thing that would get all supporters behind Derby County supporters was if their fans groups looked into what can be done to make Morris man up to his responsibilities instead of crying it’s not fair! 
 

NO IT BLOODY WAS NOT!

why aren't they doing that then? Is he above the law or something?

Edited January 18, 2022 by exAtyeoMax

[REDOXO]

1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said:

Agreed, and I should have said that what I described was the way things work in a 'standard' business sale - wherein you are selling a solvent, operational company. 

A buyer of an insolvent company will get much less in the way of promises, disclosures and indemnities. The attitude is that you're getting this company for peanuts, you know it's in a mess, deal with it. This gives the sellers a stronger position to resist the kind of indemnity that might solve the problem Derby have.

I should say I have experience in business sales as clearly you do. 
 

The two main issues here as I see it here are the ground. Is that somehow part of the sale/offer/s for the Football Club and the huge debt. 
 

To acquire the FC without the ground but debt of alleged 50m plus two major claims against the club would be lunacy in my view. If Mel continues to take no responsibility then I just don’t see how they survive. 

9 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

why aren't they doing that then? Is he above the law or something?

You would need to ask That question on the Derby Forum!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Mel Morris- A few facts?

Mel is a CBE fwiw.

He also appears to have donated to the Tories in 2017 although I cannot guarantee it was the same Mel Morris so let's heavily caveat that!

Last but not least, he was- looks a bit laughable now no- elected to the Derby Council on a cross party basis as the business representative for Derby.

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2018/01/mel-morris-cbe-nominated-for-city-role

It's a very good point by @REDOXO why are the MPs not calling on Mel Morris or criticising him at the least? His role in this whole sorry saga seems to be being overlooked by them.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

Just now, REDOXO said:

I should say I have experience in business sales as clearly you do. 
 

The two main issues here as I see it here are the ground. Is that somehow part of the sale/offer/s for the Football Club and the huge debt. 
 

To acquire the FC without the ground but debt of alleged 50m plus two major claims against the club would be lunacy in my view. If Mel continues to take no responsibility then I just don’t see how they survive. 

Based on the various announcements made over the past few days, it seems as though the stadium issue has been solved behind the scenes. I don't know how taht has been dealt with, but no one is mentioning it as a problem anymore. Seemingly the only real blocker right now is the debate around whether or not the WW and Boro claims should be treated as 'Football Creditor' debt per the terms of the EFL articles of association.

I agree with Derby fans that on a face value reading of the articles the claims don't currently fit the definition of 'Football Creditor'. However, I also think there is some merit in the EFL's explanation yesterday that the fact that the claims may yet crystallise into a due payment that would come under the definition of 'Football Creditor' means that there should at least be pressure on any PB to provide assurance that the potential awards can be met in the future. There are good arguments on both side IMO, and I'm glad I am just an observer.

[chinapig]

14 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

why aren't they doing that then? Is he above the law or something?

Possibly because they would have to admit they were foolish to cheer him on when they thought he had the EFL under his thumb.

Perhaps it's not easy to admit you've been conned into supporting a liar and a cheat so you deflect blame onto others.

I'd give an example from politics to illustrate the point but can't think of one at the moment.

[REDOXO]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Based on the various announcements made over the past few days, it seems as though the stadium issue has been solved behind the scenes. I don't know how taht has been dealt with, but no one is mentioning it as a problem anymore. Seemingly the only real blocker right now is the debate around whether or not the WW and Boro claims should be treated as 'Football Creditor' debt per the terms of the EFL articles of association.

I agree with Derby fans that on a face value reading of the articles the claims don't currently fit the definition of 'Football Creditor'. However, I also think there is some merit in the EFL's explanation yesterday that the fact that the claims may yet crystallise into a due payment that would come under the definition of 'Football Creditor' means that there should at least be pressure on any PB to provide assurance that the potential awards can be met in the future. There are good arguments on both side IMO, and I'm glad I am just an observer.

Me too!
 

However as MFC have pointed out if Derby County had not obfuscated we would all know what category of creditor Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers fell in. The EFL and it’s board are hardly likely to allow Derby to get away with deliberate stonewalling to their own advantage again. That would put the tin hat on it for every other member of the league! 

[exAtyeoMax]

3 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Possibly because they would have to admit they were foolish to cheer him on when they thought he had the EFL under his thumb.

Perhaps it's not easy to admit you've been conned into supporting a liar and a cheat so you deflect blame onto others.

I'd give an example from politics to illustrate the point but can't think of one at the moment.

Surely they weren't all conned?

I get what you're saying but surely he has to be brought to account? Can the administrators do that? Anyone? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Limited liability surely? Although even that notwithstanding...?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Saw this on Twitter- could be an interesting listen.

[chinapig]

14 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Surely they weren't all conned?

I get what you're saying but surely he has to be brought to account? Can the administrators do that? Anyone? 

Not all of course but the relative lack of rage against Morris compared to the EFL is striking.

And if I were a Derby fan I'd be distinctly unimpressed by the Administrators.

Hard to see how anybody can hold him to account as there is no suggestion he has broken any law. As the saying goes we are talking about law not justice.

Edited January 18, 2022 by chinapig

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, chinapig said:

Not all of course but the relative lack of rage against Morris compared to the EFL is striking.

Fans are one thing, but the MPs are quite another.

[exAtyeoMax]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fans are one thing, but the MPs are quite another.

is that because he is a tory donor? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

is that because he is a tory donor? 

I say a Tory donor, as far as I can tell it was a small donation and a one off at that in 2017.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/170829/mcloughlin_patrick.htm

£10k in 2017. Seems to have been a one off however,

Edited January 18, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[exAtyeoMax]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I say a Tory donor, as far as I can tell it was a small donation and a one off at that in 2017.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/170829/mcloughlin_patrick.htm

£10k in 2017. Seems to have been a one off however,

I guess he's got a lot of friends though…

[REDOXO]

23 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw this on Twitter- could be an interesting listen.

I’m all tuned in!

[Hxj]

33 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

I’m all tuned in!

Beautifully simple explanations from Couhig - 'caught with their hand in the cookie jar'

[Midred]

Just watching the local news. Poor Derby and that dreadful efl. All the speeches from parliament - does Mel Morris get a mention - of course not!

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Beautifully simple explanations from Couhig - 'caught with their hand in the cookie jar'

About to listen to him now.

Do you think either Gibson or Couhig have any validity to their claim? I feel Wycombe's if either is more valid but do you rate either in real terms?

[REDOXO]

9 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Beautifully simple explanations from Couhig - 'caught with their hand in the cookie jar'

Couhig. Derby needs to raise 65m as a minimum. Ouch!

[Mr Popodopolous]

There is possibly one bit I am wondering.

Is Couhig blurring the lines between criminal and civil/financial law here? He sounds vastly experienced to say the least but civil/criminal and financial law do differ.

[Hxj]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Do you think either Gibson or Couhig have any validity to their claim? I feel Wycombe's if either is more valid but do you rate either in real terms?

Couhig's line is - Derby cheated - Derby then went on a process of deliberate delay to ensure that no penalty was awarded in 2020/21 - therefore Wycombe went down.

He also gave Quantuma a kicking as well.  To paraphrase, Quantuma using Middlesbrough and Wycombe to cover their own incompetence and it will all come out in the end.

Gibson's has less credence, but it still needs to be resolved.

When listening to Couhig please remember he is an American lawyer so the phrasing can be unusual.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Hxj

[REDOXO]

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

There is possibly one bit I am wondering.

Is Couhig blurring the lines between criminal and civil/financial law here? He sounds vastly experienced to say the least but civil/criminal and financial law do differ.

There is more than likely more than one case here!

Couhig was excellent. Kept his head, kept on point, brought in Mel Morris’ part in this and gave the interviewer nowhere To go other than ‘the heart strings’ approach. 
 

The administrators have been shown to be wrong at every turn, there are no preferred bidders or it seems no agreements with any creditor on what emergence may look like. Couhig obviously feels he and Gibson are the Scapegoats not only for Derby County supporters but the administrators and now dumb **** MPs out for a cheap vote win. 
 

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by REDOXO

[Mr Popodopolous]

Although another twist- seems Derby can't be that badly off if they're turning down bids...£450k I believe this one for Sibley was.

[Sweeneys Penalties]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Although another twist- seems Derby can't be that badly off if they're turning down bids...£450k I believe this one for Sibley was.

wonder what tune Derby will be singing on 31.1.22

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Sweeneys Penalties said:

wonder what tune Derby will be singing on 31.1.22

They also if they haven't already, need to submit 5 years worth of accounts by 4pm on that day to the EFL not that it is mentioned anymore.

[ExiledAjax]

6 minutes ago, Sweeneys Penalties said:

wonder what tune Derby will be singing on 31.1.22

Should be filing their (very) late accounts that day as well. Could be a busy little day for all involved.

[chinapig]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Although another twist- seems Derby can't be that badly off if they're turning down bids...£450k I believe this one for Sibley was.

It's one thing to hope to get more for him - though the later in the window the more the bids might decrease if they have not secured a new owner, or at least funding to complete their fixtures. It's quite another to say a player is not for sale.

Doubtless their fans will be impressed but the Administrators are playing Russian roulette with their club.

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Should be filing their (very) late accounts that day as well. Could be a busy little day for all involved.

Don't think their fans have ever mentioned it tbh. I could be wrong but it probably doesn't get much discussion,

Thereafter they need to:

Submit at the start of March the 2020/21 accounts and the 2021/22 P&S calculations to the EFL.

And

No later than the end of March, publish the 2020/21 accounts- if not submit to CH then publish I dunno on the website or such.

If not, sanctions for each infraction please!

Edited January 18, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Don't think their fans have ever mentioned it tbh. I could be wrong but it probably doesn't get much discussion,

It will be interesting to see what they show. What are the potential penalties if they demonstrate P&S failings during those periods? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

It will be interesting to see what they show. What are the potential penalties if they demonstrate P&S failings during those periods? 

The entire period up to 2021 is covered by the settlement.

I think there are still holes that can be picked though- say e.g. it shows no rent from club to stadium company, that's another problem. If it's just club and not consolidated then maybe worse...if they have understated numbers in any given year, while you can't get them for P&S- utmost good faith?

Give no quarter I say! Hopefully further sanctions will follow for each new failing if they miss any one of these requirements.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I believe that the entire period up to 2021 is covered by the settlement.

I think there are still holes that can be picked though- say e.g. it shows no rent from club to stadium company, that's another problem. If it's just club and not consolidated then maybe worse...if they have understated numbers in any given year, while you can't get them for P&S- utmost good faith?

Give no quarter I say!

If that's the case then I guess right now there's not really any penalty to come from the accounts publication that could be worse than what Derby are already facing. I think there is your answer as to why it's not really being mentioned in relation to the administration, attempts to sell the Club, or other matters. There are much bigger issues at hand right now.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

If that's the case then I guess right now there's not really any penalty to come from the accounts publication that could be worse than what Derby are already facing. I think there is your answer as to why it's not really being mentioned in relation to the administration, attempts to sell the Club, or other matters. There are much bigger issues at hand right now.

Actually, misconduct charges can arise from missing deadlines probably but that's a secondary priority for another day.

[Davefevs]

37 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They also if they haven't already, need to submit 5 years worth of accounts by 4pm on that day to the EFL not that it is mentioned anymore.

Is this valid whilst in Administration?  

50 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Although another twist- seems Derby can't be that badly off if they're turning down bids...£450k I believe this one for Sibley was.

If they haven’t got funding this is gonna look really bad.

36 minutes ago, chinapig said:

It's one thing to hope to get more for him - though the later in the window the more the bids might decrease if they have not secured a new owner, or at least funding to complete their fixtures. It's quite another to say a player is not for sale.

Doubtless their fans will be impressed but the Administrators are playing Russian roulette with their club.

Wonder if the worm might turn in the coming days.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Is this valid whilst in Administration? 

Should be- the settlement was reached with the administrators and the full June Order seemed to draw a distinction between in administration or not.

ie Acknowledging that while they were in administration they wouldn't be required to submit to CH but at the same time, they would still have to publish- the distinction being between CH and on the website or similar.

[luke_bristol]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Is this valid whilst in Administration?  

If they haven’t got funding this is gonna look really bad.

Wonder if the worm might turn in the coming days.

Millwall might find that in a weeks time they’re getting a phone call and a conversation starting “so how how about Sibley for £450k”, at which point if I were Millwall I’d be suggesting £250k and that’s the final offer….

[Mr Popodopolous]

Here's one angle I don't qute get too.

On the one hand, having done a bit of reading the LAP/IDC ordered Derby to put in restated and revised accounts and by extension P&S ones on 18th August 2021 or by that date.

Surely however being overdue with the accounts is a delay and a breach in of itself- remember in the original case, one of Derby's defences was along the lines of:

Well I can't find it now but basically I recall reading a procedural defence that if no annual accounts submitted then you can't be found in breach of FFP. Denial, deprivation possibly?

They also knowingly gained that extra headroom through the incorrect application of amortisation- again grounds of some kind for a claim?

[Lanterne Rouge]

34 minutes ago, luke_bristol said:

Millwall might find that in a weeks time they’re getting a phone call and a conversation starting “so how how about Sibley for £450k”, at which point if I were Millwall I’d be suggesting £250k and that’s the final offer….

How do they stand if the player refuses to move? Wants to stay and fight the good fight and all that?

[Mr Popodopolous]

I'm starting to wonder, if they can continue to turn down bids for players in administration then clearly their money worries overstated and Middlesbrough and Wycombe should press on?

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

How do they stand if the player refuses to move? Wants to stay and fight the good fight and all that?

They can’t force a player.

[Lanterne Rouge]

Just now, Davefevs said:

They can’t force a player.

I did wonder. Strange times make for strange outcomes and all that.

[Bristol Rob]

51 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

They can’t force a player.

8 men had a dream...

But you are right, they can't be forced.

And because of 82, pretty sure the rules changed over who owns players registration.

[Rossi the Robin]

Colin Murray on Radio 5 live doing a whole programme on the in’s and out’s at Derby, Mel Morris, Parachute payments etc now. Very interesting 

[Waconda]

2 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

How do they stand if the player refuses to move? Wants to stay and fight the good fight and all that?

Totally within his rights not to move, he has a legal work contract.

But if Derby goes bust.

[ExiledAjax]

21 minutes ago, VT05763 said:

Totally within his rights not to move, he has a legal work contract.

But if Derby goes bust.

He'll get another one at another club.

[Mr Popodopolous]

 

Quote

Concerned onlooker7 HRS AGO

We are slowly drifting into oblivion without a sponsor. This is Derby, the Derby that can realise 20-30k fans every home game, not Bury at 3-5k fans every home match. Middlesbrough and Wycome, yes Wycombe could force our demise....anybody!!! Please help us.

From one of the comments below the line on the DET- fools like this don't help their cause.

Edited January 19, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just watching the Urgent Question bit and the guy who is answering the questions- is he the Sports Minister- made a very unusual claim.

Said the Treasury were an Unsecured Creditor- pretty sure they are now Preferential and Secondary Preferential, at least for certain categories of debt!?

21:00-22:00.

A lie or an error?

Edited January 19, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.change.org/p/make-derby-county-pay-the-39m-outstanding-to-hmrc

Here is a petition I can get behind! Sign and share...!

Although for purposes of accuracy it is £28-29m not £39m!!

[REDOXO]

32 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://www.change.org/p/make-derby-county-pay-the-39m-outstanding-to-hmrc

Here is a petition I can get behind! Sign and share...!

Although for purposes of accuracy it is £28-29m not £39m!!

Just signed that MF!

[semblar]

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Just watching the Urgent Question bit and the guy who is answering the questions- is he the Sports Minister- made a very unusual claim.

Said the Treasury were an Unsecured Creditor- pretty sure they are now Preferential and Secondary Preferential, at least for certain categories of debt!?

21:00-22:00.

A lie or an error?

"Unsecured" is correct but not complete. - you then subdivide the unsecured creditors into the other categories. You are only a secured creditor if you hold a charge over assets or the company as a whole. They are top of the queue, followed by the administrators (first preferential - but still unsecured technically), HMRC (second preferential) then legally all the rest, but EFL rules split into football and non-football

[Waconda]

8 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

He'll get another one at another club.

Exactly, so he has no reason to move now unless HE wants to.

[exAtyeoMax]

 

 

 

 

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

Just cannot believe how badly this has been handled by the administrators. They've got a weak negotiating position and they've decided to take it public!

They've complained about how unfairly they're being treated by the EFL, by WW and MFC and all three have come out with well argued presentations of their positions. As a result - a direct result - of the administrators poorly thought through tactics, WW's and MFC's positions have strengthened.