Derby County

[Midred]

Thank goodness for Robbie Savage, on his days off from Macclesfield he could volunteer at Pride Park!

[BTRFTG]

9 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?

HMRC are a preferential creditor.

[BTRFTG]

18 hours 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.

The EFL couldn't have been clearer.

Wycombe & Boro lodged their complaints in the correct form, within the appropriate timeframe and it's now in the capable hands of the independent arbiter to adjudicate. In that respect and under EFL's articles of association it was a failure on the part of the administrators not to include the risk of potential penalties within their liability assessment or declare as much to potential bidders.

As much as Derby like to think themselves the victim, their position remains entirely of their own making.

[Davefevs]

I’m really torn between wanting Derby to be saved (for the sake of staff and their good fans) and them to go bust as it will show a big club can go under…and hopefully lead to positive reform.  Bury weren’t big enough unfortunately to trigger the right changes.

[exAtyeoMax]

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m really torn between wanting Derby to be saved (for the sake of staff and their good fans) and them to go bust as it will show a big club can go under…and hopefully lead to positive reform.  Bury weren’t big enough unfortunately to trigger the right changes.

I want Mel Morris to pay…

[cider11]

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m really torn between wanting Derby to be saved (for the sake of staff and their good fans) and them to go bust as it will show a big club can go under…and hopefully lead to positive reform.  Bury weren’t big enough unfortunately to trigger the right changes.

If they do go bust the individual(s) involved in causing the financial issues can still just walk away without any fallout from it. Whilst Morris may have lost some of his money he’s invested in the club during his tenure, he has walked away from 30+ mil of debt that he left on the clubs books and made it someone else’s problem. 
 

I’m not sure what that would do to stop it happening again with another owner at another club. Where has ambition and throw money around. Then get bored or don’t realise the costs and just walk away and leave a boat load of debt. 
 

Wigan being slightly different being a new owner to Chuck them straight into Admin, however didn’t want to fund it and just dropped them.

[Davefevs]

Can Morris be stopped from being a Director?

[BTRFTG]

58 minutes ago, cider11 said:

If they do go bust the individual(s) involved in causing the financial issues can still just walk away without any fallout from it. Whilst Morris may have lost some of his money he’s invested in the club during his tenure, he has walked away from 30+ mil of debt that he left on the clubs books and made it someone else’s problem. 
 

I’m not sure what that would do to stop it happening again with another owner at another club. Where has ambition and throw money around. Then get bored or don’t realise the costs and just walk away and leave a boat load of debt. 
 

Wigan being slightly different being a new owner to Chuck them straight into Admin, however didn’t want to fund it and just dropped them.

One of the major reasons owners turn away is they're egotists who don't need the hassle.  When chants turn against them and particularly their family, it's easy to understand why they decide to get out.

City fans to take note.

[ExiledAjax]

37 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Can Morris be stopped from being a Director?

That is a whole world of legal technicality. Pretty specialist stuff.

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

One of the major reasons owners turn away is they're egotists who don't need the hassle.  When chants turn against them and particularly their family, it's easy to understand why they decide to get out.

City fans to take note.

Too late. Jon Boy's decided that already. 

[Port Said Red]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

One of the major reasons owners turn away is they're egotists who don't need the hassle.  When chants turn against them and particularly their family, it's easy to understand why they decide to get out.

The tiny minority of City fans to take note.

Fixed that for you....

[REDOXO]

3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

The EFL couldn't have been clearer.

Wycombe & Boro lodged their complaints in the correct form, within the appropriate timeframe and it's now in the capable hands of the independent arbiter to adjudicate. In that respect and under EFL's articles of association it was a failure on the part of the administrators not to include the risk of potential penalties within their liability assessment or declare as much to potential bidders.

As much as Derby like to think themselves the victim, their position remains entirely of their own making.

The last line sums it up. 
 

However now the administrators are being thoroughly inept to add to the malaise as you imply. I’m not sure how they get out of this unless they find someone who is so wealthy the 65m mentioned yesterday by Courhig is irrelevant.  
 

 

[Derby_Ram]

Afternoon again.

Finally we have some more clarification on where we seem to be at - even if we don't like the position. As much as I know Mel Morris is to blame and the admin have been less use than the proverbial chocolate teapot the push to get MPs involved and pressure on the EFL is at least pulling all the components into the open. As a fan I'd much rather know the true position than be left wondering.

The admin have committed to a statement today - however after reading the MPs updates post a meeting with them this afternoon I can see what's going to be said: "we're screwed if Boro/Wycombe don't drop their claims as player sales wouldn't cover what else we can recoup". Don't shoot the messenger - I know MM could resolve this and am perplexed by the MPs at least not flagging this. The Labour MPs especially I thought would bring this up more.

Couple of questions had been directed at me before from a couple of days ago

EFL - admitting they authorised Boro to sue us on order that they themselves didn't get sued. In the first hearing the choice of an expert on ground valuation of the ground who was anything but/didn't do their work to sufficient standard. Don't get me wrong - we're the guilty party but examples of things which leave us nervous about EFLs ability related to Derby.

Their last statement where they spent however many paragraphs saying they don't have a vendetta was remarkable!

Mr P - noticed a few references to deadline of this month for accounts to be restated. There were discussions between us/EFL after this ruling along the lines of we can't restate them as whilst the amortisation policy wasn't in line with what EFL wanted it was from a legal perspective a method which didn't break the law. How that ended up I don't know and I'm not qualified to know, but that was the discussion between Derby/EFL at the time.

Again I can't defend MM. I won't. I just want my club not to be liquidated. I want MM to pay and don't understand why more pressure across the board isn't exerted on him but at the minute our best chance appears EFL/Boro/Wycombe.

[Coombsy]

Why should Middlesbrough and Wycombe drop their clams Derby have  lied and cheated also not paying taxes 

why should they get a way with it

I do feel sorry for the Derby fans

but I also feel for Middlesbrough and Wycombe look what they lost

Many companies and people lost jobs because of the pandemic that’s what the mps should be looking out for not a badly run football club

 

 

 

 

[SBB]

13 minutes ago, Coombsy said:

Why should Middlesbrough and Wycombe drop their clams Derby have  lied and cheated also not paying taxes 

why should they get a way with it

I do feel sorry for the Derby fans

but I also feel for Middlesbrough and Wycombe look what they lost

Many companies and people lost jobs because of the pandemic that’s what the mps should be looking out for not a badly run football club

 

 

 

 

Maybe they were fishing in Canadian waters? 
 

Sorry.  

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

EFL - admitting they authorised Boro to sue us on order that they themselves didn't get sued.

There is quite a lot to unpack here. This relates to the original complaints by Boro in September 2019 yes? Where they had issues with the valuation of PP. 

What exactly is meant by "...admitting they authorised...". Is authorised the correct word to use there? Could you point me to this "admission"? I couldn't see this issue addressed in either the recent EFL statement or the Boro one. 

Just trying to get a handle on what exactly went on there that means they authorised Boro's Claim.

3 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

Their last statement where they spent however many paragraphs saying they don't have a vendetta was remarkable!

Agreed, I thought it pretty foolish to grant that accusation the dignity of a response.

[Derby_Ram]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

There is quite a lot to unpack here. This relates to the original complaints by Boro in September 2019 yes? Where they had issues with the valuation of PP. 

What exactly is meant by "...admitting they authorised...". Is authorised the correct word to use there? Could you point me to this "admission"? I couldn't see this issue addressed in either the recent EFL statement or the Boro one. 

Just trying to get a handle on what exactly went on there that means they authorised Boro's Claim.

Matt Slater from the Athletic did a podcast interview with Rick Parry last year where he discussed the chain of events. Over the last couple of days the local MPs alluded to it in their comments post meeting the EFL. In today's meeting between the admin and MPs it appears the admin have clung onto it too although I take anything Quantuma say with a large pinch of salt.

[REDOXO]

51 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:

Matt Slater from the Athletic did a podcast interview with Rick Parry last year where he discussed the chain of events. Over the last couple of days the local MPs alluded to it in their comments post meeting the EFL. In today's meeting between the admin and MPs it appears the admin have clung onto it too although I take anything Quantuma say with a large pinch of salt.

Quantuma will have a lot to answer for if County go under. Every bloody week they were on the verge of a preferred bidder. We only have their word for it on pretty much every issue until now as Middlesbrough, Wycombe and The EFL have had to give statements of position due to the deluge of garbage stemming from Pride Park. 
 

Middlesbrough’s  action was started 18 months ago. How the hell are MPs arguing about who has a case or not 10 days before the club go under. 
 

Morris did everything to ignore getting before arbitration and Quantuma have used the same rationale. But now you have Wycombe who are owned by a renowned lawyer into the bargain as well. Sigh I feel for a lot of Rams supporters, however some of the abuse Rob Couhig is getting on the Derby County fans forum is not only wrong, nasty and I’ll informed  but if I were him I would let Derby go under. Hopefully for the more sane Rams fans he is a better man than me!!

[Derby_Ram]

39 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Quantuma will have a lot to answer for if County go under. Every bloody week they were on the verge of a preferred bidder. We only have their word for it on pretty much every issue until now as Middlesbrough, Wycombe and The EFL have had to give statements of position due to the deluge of garbage stemming from Pride Park. 

Whether we survive or not Quantuma have a lot to answer for.

41 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Middlesbrough’s  action was started 18 months ago. How the hell are MPs arguing about who has a case or not 10 days before the club go under. 

This is where the EFL have to pull their finger out. They have to say whether they believe the claim - and Wycombe's - fall under football creditors or not. 

Do I believe Quantuma will announce a PB if the claim is ruled not - dubious. But they have to decide and decide quickly.

[Bristol Rob]

5 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:

Whether we survive or not Quantuma have a lot to answer for.

This is where the EFL have to pull their finger out. They have to say whether they believe the claim - and Wycombe's - fall under football creditors or not. 

Do I believe Quantuma will announce a PB if the claim is ruled not - dubious. But they have to decide and decide quickly.

I think, without a qualified or forensic understanding of accounts or law that pretty much sums it up.

These claims.

If they have merit, the EFL need to decide where - and quickly. If they are football creditors, they need to say.

If they don't, then the EFL need to come out and say that these claims  outside of EFL governance then they also need to be crystal.

The bit I struggle with is that of course they should be football creditors, they are claiming a loss based of Derby not playing by the rules in the league.

The fact the EFL won't back that up suggests that after all this time, says we aren't sure.

Are the rules (for the EFL) really that grey?

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

Matt Slater from the Athletic did a podcast interview with Rick Parry last year where he discussed the chain of events. Over the last couple of days the local MPs alluded to it in their comments post meeting the EFL. In today's meeting between the admin and MPs it appears the admin have clung onto it too although I take anything Quantuma say with a large pinch of salt.

Thanks. That doesn't quite tell me how the EFL can be said to have authorised Boro's Claim.

Do you have a link or transcript of the Parry interview?

[REDOXO]

2 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

Whether we survive or not Quantuma have a lot to answer for.

This is where the EFL have to pull their finger out. They have to say whether they believe the claim - and Wycombe's - fall under football creditors or not. 

Do I believe Quantuma will announce a PB if the claim is ruled not - dubious. But they have to decide and decide quickly.

For a short order answer. Again this is an old claim that has been ignored and not got into the relevant body for a decision because the administrations at Derby (MM and Quantuma) have done everything they can to avoid it. 
 

BUT one thing is clear, The EFL will not allow Derby County FC to obfuscate to their advantage again. 
 

The EFL have been dragged through the mud by Derby County, I would suggest there is no one on any board at the EFL cares less anymore about the outcome particularly at its other member clubs. 

[ashton_fan]

If Derby are kicked out of the league we'll lose the 3 points we gained from the recent home win. I suppose it would mean only 2 going down but since Derby are almost certain to go down anyway it would probably leave us in a slightly worse position than now'

Of the teams below us at present we'll lose 3 points to Hull and Cardiff and 2 points to Reading and Swansea based on their results against Derby. Birmingham, Peterborough and Barnsley will be in the same boat as us since they both beat Derby in earlier games.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

21 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’m really torn between wanting Derby to be saved (for the sake of staff and their good fans) and them to go bust as it will show a big club can go under…and hopefully lead to positive reform.  Bury weren’t big enough unfortunately to trigger the right changes.

Given the discussion in the House of Commons on Tuesday, I'll be very surprised if there isn't reform, no matter what the outcome for Derby is.

[BTRFTG]

I thought the EFL clear. Their role is to attempt to have members in dispute resolve their differences to the benefit of all, without resort to Court.  Where that mediation process doesn't work to support resolving the matter via an independent arbiter. EFL does not itself act as judge. In that respect they made clear they had sought submissions from all 3 parties. Boro commencing activity over a year ago and Wycombe in response to Derby's intransigent attitude.

EFL will let the independent body rule whether Boro & Wycombe's claims are football related (haven't seen an argument why they wouldn't be,) and if that's the finding they'll administer under their existing procedures.

As is, it seems to me the EFL have bent over backwards to give Derby chance after chance. I didn't realise, for example, that once in administration membership is  annulled, though the decision temporarily suspended, such you have a chance to fulfill obligations. It's not suspension pending expulsion, it's the other way round. Despite that threat Derby have failed to produce the documents and undertakings by the dates required and the EFL, rather than go through with the sanction, gave them another chance. The documents that were produced weren't full disclosure, such the EFL has allowed these to be redrafted showing all potential liabilities (football or otherwise.) Now that sounds the opposite of vindictive to me.

Note also Derby are trying to use Covid legislation in respect of insolvency for issues that arose long before Covid existed. Lawyers have spotted the EFL may not have updated their articles in light of the legislation but as that was designed as a temporary measure is that really a surprise? It's akin arguing that although 'my client murdered all those women the case must be dropped because he wasn't fully read his rights'. Ditto Derby's flagrant 'heartstrings' appeal via Parliament. "We've been around a long time, ...were once famous, ...lots of people like us...." What the hell has that to do with fiddling the books and taxman? I note they didn't deploy the "...good for the local economy.." argument, as would have been embarrassing seeing the lines of unsecured creditors who've lost out having been robbed by the club.

[chinapig]

10 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Thanks. That doesn't quite tell me how the EFL can be said to have authorised Boro's Claim.

Do you have a link or transcript of the Parry interview?

It may be the Athletic podcast from December. Search your podcast app of choice for The Athletic Business of Sport: EFL Chair Rick Parry On Regulating The Football Pyramid.

I'd have to listen again though so I may be wrong.

Edited January 20, 2022 by chinapig

[phantom]

1 hour ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Given the discussion in the House of Commons on Tuesday, I'll be very surprised if there isn't reform, no matter what the outcome for Derby is.

For football supporters you would certainly hope so, for Derby though it may not come in soon enough

[chinapig]

57 minutes ago, chinapig said:

It may be the Athletic podcast from December. Search your podcast app of choice for The Athletic Business of Sport: EFL Chair Rick Parry On Regulating The Football Pyramid.

I'd have to listen again though so I may be wrong.

Have listened again and there is some discussion of Boro's claim. Points to note:

Boro threatened to sue the EFL for failure to rigourously apply the rules. Parry admitted that they were too slow (as many of us have been saying all along). I don't recall Derby fans complaining about the delay at the time, only some of them cheering Morris on for having the EFL on strings.He should perhaps have gone on to say that Morris wanted to drag it out to avoid an earlier points deduction that would have relegated Derby instead of Wycombe but I guess he was being diplomatic.

There is no reference to authorising Boro's claim. This makes sense as the EFL is not a party to the dispute so cannot authorise it or not. What is not clear to me is whether the arbitration is in progress. Perhaps it has been held up given Boro's claim that the Administrators had not replied to their letters?

On the reform front an independent financial unit is being set up to improve the process. Better late than never.

So the EFL is to blame to the extent that that it failed to be tougher earlier but this still seems to fall short of victimising Derby.

[BTRFTG]

52 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Have listened again and there is some discussion of Boro's claim. Points to note:

Boro threatened to sue the EFL for failure to rigourously apply the rules. Parry admitted that they were too slow (as many of us have been saying all along). I don't recall Derby fans complaining about the delay at the time, only some of them cheering Morris on for having the EFL on strings.He should perhaps have gone on to say that Morris wanted to drag it out to avoid an earlier points deduction that would have relegated Derby instead of Wycombe but I guess he was being diplomatic.

There is no reference to authorising Boro's claim. This makes sense as the EFL is not a party to the dispute so cannot authorise it or not. What is not clear to me is whether the arbitration is in progress. Perhaps it has been held up given Boro's claim that the Administrators had not replied to their letters?

On the reform front an independent financial unit is being set up to improve the process. Better late than never.

So the EFL is to blame to the extent that that it failed to be tougher earlier but this still seems to fall short of victimising Derby.

Boro's threat against the EFL was subjective, to the extent their interpretation as to how they wanted the EFL to act didn't accord with how they thought the articles of association allowed. They may be right, but that would have been for a court to decide. Of course courts hate seeing cases where mediation hadn't first been attempted, hence where we are where we are and why the EFL statement read as it did. To a degree Boro were posturing, but that's for them, not the EFL. The equivalent of a player rushing at the ref miming a card for an opponent whilst not yet knowing what action the ref is to take.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

There is no reference to authorising Boro's claim. This makes sense as the EFL is not a party to the dispute so cannot authorise it or not.

As expected.

I think I do remember hearing part if not all of that interview on the Totally Football League Show. I'll listen again.

From their forum it seems that there are going to be many meetings between the EFL, Quantuma, MPs, Derby Council, fans groups, Boro, and Wycmobe. Will anyone have time to actually do anything as a result of these meetings I wonder?

Edited January 20, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, phantom said:

For football supporters you would certainly hope so, for Derby though it may not come in soon enough

Folks love to bandy about demands such as 'justice' or 'reform' though rarely without an inkling as to what outcome they'd like to see delivered.

I see no possibility or reason to start the pyramid again from scratch, one cannot ignore memory & association. So 'reform' should take what form?

I don't think that'll start with supporters having more realistic expectations, supporters ever being dreamers, nor do I think supporters will propose to pay more for the existing level of extravagance they demand. One only has to look north to the 'House of Tents' to realise how difficult it is to strike a balance. How they mocked us with the Fake Sheikh's alleged wealth, not realising he doesn't have to spend it even should he have it (which has always been in doubt.) Is he a fit person to control a club? Why not? Seems he's doing a grand job from where I'm sitting. He's kept them trading, he's kept them struggling. It takes two to tango and as Gasheads were thick enough to fall for his non-falsifiable patter is it they or he who should reform? 'I said I'll build a stadium. Didn't say of what type, where or when...' Bloke could still be good to his word.

Or one could go down the route of restriction, but as nobody starts from a level playing field is that fair? Forest Green may never generate Man City level revenues, irrespective of how well they perform. Not all clubs are funded equally, some have greater latitude than others - City being a prime example. Interesting that in pro sport the finest example of maintaining fair and open competition is to make it utterly restrictive. All clubs receive the same from TV and merchandise. That's why the NFL is so brilliant. And in respect of fans, their solution is to forbid fans ever being able to collectively own their club. Though The Packers horse bolted long since the stable door is now firmly shut, nailed and triple padlocked, never again to open. So unfair, but you never hear fans complaining.

Perchance it's us fans, not football per se, that need to reform?

[Betty Swallocks]

Sorry, been living on the moon for the past couple of years……. have Derby County no longer got the EFL & Championship clubs on strings then? 

[Sir Geoff]

Am i correct in thinking that the EFL gave Derby another opportunity before this season started to produce accounts and ''put their hands up' by saying that Derbys and Wycombes fixtures were interchangeable before the season started. That surely implied an acknowledgement of Wycombes complaint and a warning to Derby that time was running out.

[BTRFTG]

8 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

tarted to produce accounts

There's 'producing accounts', 'producing fully audit accounts to agreed international standard', 'producing impaired accounts' & 'producing fictional accounts'. Derby appear loathe to fulfill the second option.

[Merrick's Marvels]

17 minutes ago, Betty Swallocks said:

Sorry, been living on the moon for the past couple of years……. have Derby County no longer got the EFL & Championship clubs on strings then? 

No, apparently not. Turns out it was actually an evil EFL vendetta against them. Who knew, eh? 

[Betty Swallocks]

11 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

No, apparently not. Turns out it was actually an evil EFL vendetta against them. Who knew, eh? 

Oh how the tables have turned, or so it would seem. 

[Gol]

On 19/01/2022 at 13:58, Davefevs said:

Can Morris be stopped from being a Director?

Potentially yes as the main reasons for disqualification are

 

https://www.gov.uk/company-director-disqualification 

There is an outstanding tax bill and accounts have had to be amended subsequently. However if the case went to court would be extremely messy and I would hazard Mel Morris would fight the disqualification all the way.

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

As expected.

I think I do remember hearing part if not all of that interview on the Totally Football League Show. I'll listen again.

From their forum it seems that there are going to be many meetings between the EFL, Quantuma, MPs, Derby Council, fans groups, Boro, and Wycmobe. Will anyone have time to actually do anything as a result of these meetings I wonder?

I wonder if Mel Boy will be invited. 

[Gol]

4 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Given the discussion in the House of Commons on Tuesday, I'll be very surprised if there isn't reform, no matter what the outcome for Derby is.

I would be amazed if the recent Governance report is not at least debated in the Commons off the back of this https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fan-led-review-of-football-governance-securing-the-games-future

[ExiledAjax]

6 minutes ago, Gol said:

I would be amazed if the recent Governance report is not at least debated in the Commons off the back of this https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fan-led-review-of-football-governance-securing-the-games-future

It's already been mentioned at length in the urgent question debate from a couple of days ago. It has cross-party support and is expected to be included in the Queen's Speech in the spring.

[Gol]

7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

It's already been mentioned at length in the urgent question debate from a couple of days ago. It has cross-party support and is expected to be included in the Queen's Speech in the spring.

Thanks I missed that, hopefully it does, what I have read of it sounds promising

[ExiledAjax]

7 minutes ago, Gol said:

Thanks I missed that, hopefully it does, what I have read of it sounds promising

Not to de-rail this thread too much, but fyi.

 

[BTRFTG]

10 minutes ago, Gol said:

I would be amazed if the recent Governance report is not at least debated in the Commons off the back of this https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fan-led-review-of-football-governance-securing-the-games-future

The problem with that report is it's the footballing equivalent of Monty Python's 'How To Do It'  sketch (look it up yung 'uns'.)

On the one hand they demand better and more timely financial diligence, on the other they demand 'parity' (sic) for Womens football (whilst acknowledging few wish to pay to watch or sponsor that, therefore such diligence as applied to the men's game would have to go out the window.)

Supporters Golden Shares are great in theory, but not if I'm the punter investing in the club. Why would I risk my investment if a bunch of potless herberts could scupper the way in which I desire to make the club a success? Isn't German football great? In some ways undoubtedly it is, but not according to the large clubs who bemoan such restriction prevents them from competing at the highest level of European competition.

'Heritage' and populism rarely mix. It's why monuments fall to rack and ruin & preservation organisations are run by middle aged, middle income, white folk. Have 'heritage football' by all means; get it off TV save for a few select highlights when games aren't being played, make punters realise if you want to see football you have to go to the game, ensure players earn no more than 6 times the average fan wage such there's an affinity between players and supporters,  ensure fans have access to 'shop price' Bovril & Wagon Wheels not 'restaurant price' mechanically recovered meat burgers with exotic flavourings, ensure newspaper back pages are filled with images of players playing, or dressed in comic attire pending the next cup fixture, not discussing their contract demands, excessive demonstrations of affluence, sexual predilections of the latest wanabee starlet, or appearing at Court for crimes committed. They claim 'heritage', they want no part of it.

Today fans WANT something they can't afford. No easy and quick solution to resolve that.

 

[Hxj]

Update from the Administrators at An Update From The Joint Administrators Of Derby County Football Club - Blog - Derby County (dcfc.co.uk)

The most interesting bits (to me) are:

• The implications are that the bids are not sufficient to meet the Football Creditors and other creditors rules.
• The claims from Middlesbrough and Wycombe, highlighted below.  Without reading too much into the comments it would appear that the legal advice received from leading law firms and three QCs is not as dismissive of the merits of the claims as others seem to think they should be,

This statement provides a summary of progress to supporters and the media in respect of Derby County Football Club. As we have previously reported, we are dealing with a large number of sensitive issues and felt that issuing reactive statements in response to the recent statements issued by various related parties would at best be unhelpful and also may hinder or prejudice discussions we are having with the same parties. Our perceived lack of recent communication has therefore been both tactical and deliberate.

As we have seen from statements issued by others, sometimes these can be misinterpreted and prompt further questions. We are in receipt of a substantial number of messages from supporters, containing questions and supportive comments. We have prioritised our time to focus on the key matters at hand and expect this statement to go some way towards responding to the key questions arising from these messages.

We have set out below the key matters which we believe are relevant to ensuring the survival of Derby County Football Club. Whilst we have categorised those key matters, they are, in reality very closely linked. Whilst we have tried to be as clear and open as possible, there are matters, for reasons of confidentiality and sensitivity, which cannot be shared and we hope supporters and the media will understand the reasons for this.

1. Interested Parties

Whilst we have communicated previously, there has been a huge amount of interest from parties interested in acquiring the club. We have run a careful and diligent process and we are currently engaged in discussions with three of those parties, all of whom have the credibility to take the club on. Whilst we had hoped to have been able to announce formally our favoured bidder, this has not been possible to date as a result of the issues we will refer to later in this update. These discussions continue this week, and we remain hopeful that we will be able to announce the preferred bidder shortly. Due to the complex nature of these matters, we are unable today to commit to the specific date on which we will do this.We are, however, cognisant of the 1st February deadline as set by the EFL.

The key issues for the interested parties we are talking to are:

* The uncertainty around the claims from the two football league clubs and what impact that may have on the club going forward in the event these claims are not resolved during the administration.

* The uncertainty around the possibility of further sanctions from the EFL in the event the chosen bid does not deliver the financial compensation to pass the EFL rules around payment to both football creditors and other creditors.

Please note that the above issues have been subject to numerous discussions with both the EFL and others over the last few months and are extremely complex. They are also very sensitive, and we do not believe it to be helpful to discuss them in any detail in this update.

2. Claims from two Football League Clubs

These have been well documented both by us previously and more recently, by others making statements. We do not think it would be helpful, in view of the sensitivity of these matters, to elaborate on the discussions we have been having other than to confirm we are committed to dealing with these claims in the most expeditious manner. They are complex and are heavily disputed. Whilst the two claims have yet to be fully pleaded, we have taken advice from leading law firms and obtained three QC barristers opinions as to the merits of their claims and also the EFL current position.

We have highlighted different ways in which we believe these claims can be dealt with and we are in discussions with the EFL in this regard. As referred above, no interested party is willing to commit to acquiring the club without further clarity on these claims and we continue, tirelessly to find a solution to move matters forward.

3. Funding and the EFL position

We have maintained cordial and business-like relations with the EFL and are committed to continue with those. They are the regulator, and we understand and respect their rules. They have concerns about the time this process is taking, principally because of point 2 above, and have asked us for evidence that we have the ability to fund the club through to the end of the season in the event we are not able to successfully achieve an exit before then. The EFL have maintained this position throughout and our objective was always that once we had formalised our buyer, that we would work with that buyer to help with funding whilst the formalities of exiting the Administration were dealt with. That remains our intention and indeed discussions with those interested parties as referred above have focused on their commitment to provide that funding. The deadline for evidence of funding is 1st February, at which time the EFL have said that if they do not have firm evidence of funding, they will consider their position in terms of Derby’s ability to fulfil the fixture list. We have provided the EFL with 3 scenarios as to how that funding gap can be bridged and the EFL await further confirmation from us as to which scenario we plan to deliver. This will be dealt with over the next few days. In the interim, the EFL have confirmed that until as such time as they are satisfied with that evidence, they will not allow any new player registrations to take place and this does include player contract extensions.

4. Playing Squad and discussions with Wayne Rooney

We have maintained a regular dialogue with Wayne Rooney and indeed met with him on Tuesday this week. We are hugely impressed with his commitment and understanding of the position. We are also hugely impressed with the attitude and performance of the players in this very difficult time. We have explained the current position to Wayne Rooney and have committed to keeping him abreast of our progress. There have been some player exits but our position has always been that we would like to maintain the integrity and quality of the squad as best we can. That is still our intention.

We would like to assure everyone linked to the club that we are working tirelessly to achieve a successful outcome and still believe this is possible. We understand the frustrations of the supporters who are desperate for the club to survive and we are doing everything in our power to make this happen.

It is our intention to maintain open dialogue with you and will communicate as and when we have meaningful updates.

[exAtyeoMax]

https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/an-open-letter-from-steve-gibson-to-the-joint-administrators-of-derby-county-fc

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

 

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

Supporters Golden Shares are great in theory, but not if I'm the punter investing in the club. Why would I risk my investment if a bunch of potless herberts could scupper the way in which I desire to make the club a success?

Golden shares don't envisage anything particularly difficult for potential investors. As described in the report they would give fans the right to stop owners changing the name, the strip or the location of the club. If a new buyer isn't prepared to invest unless they can move the club... then they can do one as far as I'm concerned!

Isn't German football great? In some ways undoubtedly it is, but not according to the large clubs who bemoan such restriction prevents them from competing at the highest level of European competition.

Business which are regulated will always want less regulation, that's life, but there's no reason they should have what they want. And there's no reason why that regulation if well structured should prevent those businesses from succeeding. The UK financial services sector is both highly regulated and a global success.

Today fans WANT something they can't afford. No easy and quick solution to resolve that.

Regulation will close the gap between what fans want and what they can afford. The unregulated wild west of English football (not just English football!) is why we've had such crazy player wage inflation and why clubs keep over-spending and going bust. Good regulation will allow clubs to flourish

 

I don't think the fan led review is unrealistic or undesirable. Lack of regulation has brought us to where we are now with most clubs losing money and a steady trickle of clubs going bust. We're seeing potential political interference in the case of DCFC's administration because for very good reasons it's not politically easy to let clubs go bust. Instead of the politicians rushing in with barely thought through interventions at the last minute when things go wrong, as they surely will again and again, wouldn't it be better if we had a regulatory framework to reduce the likelihood of that happening in the first place?

[Hxj]

10 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/an-open-letter-from-steve-gibson-to-the-joint-administrators-of-derby-county-fc

He loves a quick session of 'putting the boot in'!

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

upporters Golden Shares are great in theory, but not if I'm the punter investing in the club. Why would I risk my investment if a bunch of potless herberts could scupper the way in which I desire to make the club a success? Isn't German football great? In some ways undoubtedly it is, but not according to the large clubs who bemoan such restriction prevents them from competing at the highest level of European competition.

German league football is in most ways the worst of both worlds.  They can't get big individual investors as there are too many restrictions.  They don't actually have fan led governance either, all the crucial decisions are made by a small elite, the chairman and his elite gets to choose which candidates stand for each post, and what the fan base are allowed to otherwise vote on.  It is all 'smoke and mirrors'.

[chinapig]

Kieran Maguire is on today's Guardian Football Weekly podcast talking about Derby:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/audio/2022/jan/20/bergwijn-brilliance-and-the-inside-story-at-derby-county-football-weekly-extra-podcast

[BTRFTG]

1 minute ago, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

 

I don't think the fan led review is unrealistic or undesirable. Lack of regulation has brought us to where we are now with most clubs losing money and a steady trickle of clubs going bust. We're seeing potential political interference in the case of DCFC's administration because for very good reasons it's not politically easy to let clubs go bust. Instead of the politicians rushing in with barely thought through interventions at the last minute when things go wrong, as they surely will again and again, wouldn't it be better if we had a regulatory framework to reduce the likelihood of that happening in the first place?

It would, but the ToR gives little hope of how that might be achieved? Existing regulation should have sought to prevent where we now are, but it didn't .

As with most political solutions the quick fix is to throw prudent folks money at other's failings. In this case football becoming reliant pretty much exclusively on The Premier, but if that's too onerous it'll kill that golden goose and their owners will look elsewhere. Sure will if the non-starter of womens parity is realised. Nowhere does the review seek to address the fundamental problem, that football's financing model at the top has little to do with fans in stadia. It talks of heritage grounds and communities whilst the reality is, even at our level, City receive more in solidarity and TV monies than it does from its own fans paying through the gate.

It's also good reason why politicians should never be let anywhere near the problem. If a badly run club goes bust is it really that bad a thing? If the fans really are there and willing to show support,(Wimbledon, FC United et al,) there will follow phoenix from the flames. But as Derby have shown that isn't what this is about. They want cake and eat it. Demand high price competition, just wanting to pay for it, whoever that impacts.

[Merrick's Marvels]

30 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/an-open-letter-from-steve-gibson-to-the-joint-administrators-of-derby-county-fc

Well said, that man. 

[BTRFTG]

11 minutes ago, Hxj said:

German league football is in most ways the worst of both worlds.  They can't get big individual investors as there are too many restrictions.  They don't actually have fan led governance either, all the crucial decisions are made by a small elite, the chairman and his elite gets to choose which candidates stand for each post, and what the fan base are allowed to otherwise vote on.  It is all 'smoke and mirrors'.

Exactly, he who pays the piper and if you can't or won't pay why should he play your tune?

I'll give you a classic example of why fan power ain't worth a bean. I used to organize a few things at the London Branch of the Supporters club. A few of us would, through fanzines, T shirts and events raise quite decent sums which were used to subsidise those supporters less able to afford to get go fixtures. We built up a tidy reserve for such purposes and had a decent following. Now some egotists at the main Supporters Club got ideas above their station, thinking they too should sit on City's board, save they didn't have the wherewithal. In desperation and under threat they sequestered the London Branch funds. I immediately resigned, others quickly followed, subsidised trips stopped, nobody bothered with the supporters club at the ground, communications ceased and organized trips to games no longer took place. We each ended up doing our own thing. The 'token' board member lasted about as long as Scott Davison because, no **** Sherlock, if you can't back up decisions with funds, why are you there?

 

[Hxj]

The latest from the EFL - Derby County update - News - EFL Official Website - further useful information on 1 February deadline ... and breathe ...

 

 

During the past 72 hours, the EFL has met with a number of integral stakeholders including MPs, Government officials, local authorities and the Rams Trust to discuss the ongoing and challenging situation relating to Derby County.

In all of these discussions, the League has maintained its position that is seeking to work proactively with all relevant parties to find appropriate and expeditious solutions that will ultimately see the Club out of Administration and thriving under new ownership.

However, the EFL is disappointed to note that whilst this dialogue has been taking place there has been, and continues to be, a large amount of misinformation circulating in the public domain which is inaccurate, misleading and a distraction to the immediate objective of understanding how the Club can be funded in order to complete the current season.

One such claim made in the past 24 hours is that the EFL has questions to answer regarding a supposed deal reached with Middlesbrough FC linked to Disciplinary action being taken against Derby County for alleged Profitability and Sustainability breaches. These accusations are wholly untrue, serving as an unwelcome diversion to current matters that need swift and decisive action by Derby’s Administrators.

This claim was in fact heard and dismissed by an Independent Disciplinary Commission, the judgment of which was published in August 2020. With original charges lodged in January 2020 Derby County’s ownership argued that the agreed stay of proceedings by Middlesbrough FC against the EFL was an 'extraordinary bargain' with the Club bringing forward a series of procedural defences, one of which that EFL charges against Derby County were an ‘Abuse of Process’. After carefully considering all the evidence the Independent Commission rejected all of these allegations and claims entirely (see para 161 onwards here).

The League is similarly concerned by recent claims that suggests a broader resolution to ongoing issues is solely dependent on the claims from Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers being resolved, which are merely one part of a complex puzzle.

At present, the EFL is not in a position to make a determination as to the status of compensation claims by Middlesbrough and Wycombe under the terms of the EFL’s Articles of Association and/or Insolvency policy, as it could lead to additional action from those already interested parties and the wider membership of Clubs. The role of the EFL is to balance the interests of all 72 EFL Clubs and to make a unilateral decision either way could de-stabilise the competition and be viewed as reckless and unfair to all parties.

In an attempt to move this particular matter forward swiftly, the EFL has written to all parties with a proposed solution to negotiate a deal via independent legal mediation, alongside alternative options that would give clarity on the Football Creditors point quickly. The League is currently awaiting a response from all of those involved and it hopes to hear from all parties on the options proposed imminently.

Whilst clarity is also required as to the status of the claims from both Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers, it is also critical that progress on two fronts urgently be made:

Funding – The Administrator as a matter of urgency needs to clarify how it plans to fund Derby County for the remainder of the season. By the Administrator’s own forecasting, the Club will run out of cash by February, and therefore sourcing funds is of paramount importance to ensure they can compete for the rest of the season. This is not an artificial EFL deadline, but the reality of when we have been informed the money runs out.
Preferred Bidder – The EFL needs urgent clarification from the Administrator as to who the preferred bidder is. Without this clarification, no tangible progress can be made into solving the challenges associated with the claims.
In addition, further to a meeting with MPs yesterday, the EFL has agreed to take part in any additional collective dialogue between Derby County, Middlesbrough, Wycombe Wanderers, the Administrators, local Derby MPs and other relevant stakeholders that is requested and will progress matters.

While ultimately the affairs of Derby County remain solely in the care of the Administrators, the EFL is currently doing everything within its powers and remit to help navigate a solution. The League is exasperated that this has still not been resolved and that we are approaching the end of the transfer window and Administrators have still not provided us any guarantee of funds which are required under the terms of the League’s Insolvency Policy.

As a founder Member of the Football League with a proud history, the Club is of huge importance to the East Midlands, our competition and the wider football family and we all hope it can flourish once again in the future as a sustainable member of the EFL.

However, any resolution achieved cannot ignore or sidestep EFL Regulations or UK law and any solution needs to be found that satisfies the competition regulations and the terms of the EFL’s Insolvency Policy that was set and agreed by all 72 members, including Derby County.

As previously articulated, this 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. Any decision taken by the League must be taken on behalf of the interests of all its membership – including Derby County, Middlesbrough, and Wycombe Wanderers - and to ensure the long-term integrity of the League as a collective. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Hxj

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

Kieran Maguire is on today's Guardian Football Weekly podcast talking about Derby:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/audio/2022/jan/20/bergwijn-brilliance-and-the-inside-story-at-derby-county-football-weekly-extra-podcast

He gives an excellent summary of the issues, and tempers it with sympathy for Derby fans. 

I enjoy Onuaha as well by the way. I think he's a great addition to the podcast. And Maguire has taught him as well!

On the other note, this exchange of public statements is some quite remarkable washing of laundry in public. I don't remember anything like this around other distressed clubs.

Edited January 20, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

53 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

It would, but the ToR gives little hope of how that might be achieved? Existing regulation should have sought to prevent where we now are, but it didn't .

Starting point? Breakeven obligations on the cash flow, each year- preferably through natural means rather than owner injections. Whether that fits with the ToR I haven't looked at so closely.

If a club has a positive cashflow all the better or a breakeven that becomes positive through owner top up all good, but where problems can arise of course is where club has £10m cash inflow, but expends I don't know £20m cash and then the owner- through cash, equity etc- tops that up.

All well and good while the owner is happy or has the financial resources but when that ends or goes wrong...whereas if net naturally generated cash flow is a minimum of £0...the owner pulling or having to pull funding doesn't tip the club into insolvency at least not instantly. Okay that's not a magic bullet but a fairly good place to start I reckon.

[GreedyHarry]

1 hour ago, exAtyeoMax said:

https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/an-open-letter-from-steve-gibson-to-the-joint-administrators-of-derby-county-fc

 

Ouch!

Edited January 20, 2022 by GreedyHarry

[BTRFTG]

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Starting point? Breakeven obligations on the cash flow, each year- preferably through natural means rather than owner injections. Whether that fits with the ToR I haven't looked at so closely.

If a club has a positive cashflow all the better or a breakeven that becomes positive through owner top up all good, but where problems can arise of course is where club has £10m cash inflow, but expends I don't know £20m cash and then the owner- through cash, equity etc- tops that up.

All well and good while the owner is happy or has the financial resources but when that ends or goes wrong...whereas if net naturally generated cash flow is a minimum of £0...the owner pulling or having to pull funding doesn't tip the club into insolvency at least not instantly. Okay that's not a magic bullet but a fairly good place to start I reckon.

Good idea but how even to get to that starting point?

For City, assuming little moving on the transfer front, we've to find £25m pet season  immediately. OK if fans are happy to quadruple the price of admittance. I won't hold my breath.

[Ska Junkie]

Derby's away fixture at 'Boro next month (if they last that long) could be a tasty one. 

Personally, I hope Derby get a stay of execution but it isn't looking good unless Morris gets involved and pays up for his vanity and arrogance.

I fear any changes in financial control may come too late to save them sadly. 

[Southport Red]

1 hour ago, Ska Junkie said:

Derby's away fixture at 'Boro next month (if they last that long) could be a tasty one. 

Personally, I hope Derby get a stay of execution but it isn't looking good unless Morris gets involved and pays up for his vanity and arrogance.

I fear any changes in financial control may come too late to save them sadly. 

I hear what you are saying, but very few teams actually do disappear. The EFL may have been happy to sit on their hands while that guy raped Bury FC but WRDC are “too big to be allowed to fail”. I reckon a ‘white knight’ will come in at the 11th hour and Morris will skulk off taking his twenty pence in the pound with him. 

[Ska Junkie]

2 minutes ago, Southport Red said:

I hear what you are saying, but very few teams actually do disappear. The EFL may have been happy to sit on their hands while that guy raped Bury FC but WRDC are “too big to be allowed to fail”. I reckon a ‘white knight’ will come in at the 11th hour and Morris will skulk off taking his twenty pence in the pound with him. 

 hope you're right Southport. 

[Southport Red]

14 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

 hope you're right Southport. 

Me too, much as I hate Derby’s cheating and the arrogance of some of their fans,I wouldn’t wish a club extinction on anyone. Morris will move on, the administrators will get paid their huge fees, the players will get new contracts, Rooney will be fine, but the ‘ordinary’ staff and fans will be left with nothing. Wouldn’t wish that on anyone. 

[chinapig]

21 minutes ago, Southport Red said:

I hear what you are saying, but very few teams actually do disappear. The EFL may have been happy to sit on their hands while that guy raped Bury FC but WRDC are “too big to be allowed to fail”. I reckon a ‘white knight’ will come in at the 11th hour and Morris will skulk off taking his twenty pence in the pound with him. 

Possibly but the white knight will have to come up with £50-60m plus any sums that might be payable to Boro and Wycombe and enough to meet the costs for the rest of this season but will still not own the stadium. A big ask.

Edited January 20, 2022 by chinapig

[Ska Junkie]

I guess the other side to this whole fiasco is how to stop any other club from doing the same thing in risking the very future of that club in pursuit of the Premier league dream?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting to note that Derby aren't paying rent on Pride Park!? Nixon...

Hope the EFL are on this. A paper transaction at the very least needs to be there for FFP purposes!

That's not to say that it doesn't figure because the Gellaw Newco 202 and the Gellaw Newco 204 accounts for 2019 and 2020 showed nothing- not even a paper transaction.

Unique among clubs who have 'sold' and leased back their grounds!

Edited January 20, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[BTRFTG]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting to note that Derby aren't paying rent on Pride Park!? Nixon...

Hope the EFL are on this. A paper transaction at the very least needs to be there for FFP purposes!

That's not to say that it doesn't figure because the Gellaw Newco 202 and the Gellaw Newco 204 accounts for 2019 and 2020 showed nothing- not even a paper transaction.

Unique among clubs who have 'sold' and leased back their grounds!

As no monies were exchanged during the sale (other than the 3rd party loan charged by MSD against the freehold,) why would the holding company expect to receive rent? Other than to create an artificial 'income' (sic) the beneficial owner of the stadium never changed.

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

As no monies were exchanged during the sale (other than the 3rd party loan charged by MSD against the freehold,) why would the holding company expect to receive rent? Other than to create an artificial 'income' (sic) the beneficial owner of the stadium never changed.

Gellaw Newco 202 and 204 sit outside the football group.

Had it been or remained within the same group, then the profit would have not been a factor for FFP.

Whether it's real or paper, there needs to be something for this season and beyond. Possibly all of the transactions were paper but where profits/'profits' count towards FFP, so must the rent.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Presumably Bielik or Jozwiak?

[Davefevs]

39 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting to note that Derby aren't paying rent on Pride Park!? Nixon...

Hope the EFL are on this. A paper transaction at the very least needs to be there for FFP purposes!

That's not to say that it doesn't figure because the Gellaw Newco 202 and the Gellaw Newco 204 accounts for 2019 and 2020 showed nothing- not even a paper transaction.

Unique among clubs who have 'sold' and leased back their grounds!

25 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

As no monies were exchanged during the sale (other than the 3rd party loan charged by MSD against the freehold,) why would the holding company expect to receive rent? Other than to create an artificial 'income' (sic) the beneficial owner of the stadium never changed.

Almost as if the stadium sale was a bit dodgy isn’t it?

That just makes the decision to allow a “sale” of £81m look massively generous to Derby.  

[BTRFTG]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Gellaw Newco 202 and 204 sit outside the football group.

Had it been or remained within the same group, then the profit would have not been a factor for FFP.

Whether it's real or paper, there needs to be something for this season and beyond. Possibly all of the transactions were paper but where profits/'profits' count towards FFP, so must the rent.

Without accounts who knows?

Perchance if there is a lease it came either with an extended rent free period, else peppercorn rent. Of course, if the former, there should still show an amortized charge against both budget and liability  but nothing against cashflow.

I'm not sure how FFP deals with lease amortization?

[BTRFTG]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Almost as if the stadium sale was a bit dodgy isn’t it?

That just makes the decision to allow a “sale” of £81m look massively generous to Derby.  

Not to forget there was an existing floating charge against the freehold from when it was constructed though I'm told that was minimal. Some time ago I posed the question as to whether the figure of £81m was required to account for that and the MSD charge but apparently not?