Derby County

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

4 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

While I totally agree with your sentiment, Derby County should still be help accountable where the HMRC is concerned, even if it takes them years to pay it off. Letting them off the proceeds of sticking 2 fingers up at the tax man (which we would all love to do) is just wrong, the HMRC should not set a precedent IMHO, Derby should face that bill, in full or it cause them discomfort until it's settled.

Yep - completely agree.

[Merrick's Marvels]

24 minutes ago, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

It's really unfair that Derby are getting away without paying their full debts but forcing them to fail doesn't help anyone. 

Yes it does. Derby disappearing and having to climb their way back protects ALL the other EFL clubs from being in a similar mess in the future. And that's the EFL's role - to act on behalf of all their members.

It's not foolproof protection but it sends a message to owners, a mighty powerful one, that if they go rogue, they're putting their club's very existence at risk. That's the EFL protecting ALL of us, as best it can.

If the opposite happens, Derby "get away with it" and pay a pittance, a precedent is set that might just encourage more dodgy owners to act like Mel Morris - and as we've seen, that's no good for anyone.

And for the benefit of any visiting Derby fans, I have no beef with you or your club. Whatsoever. But I certainly do with the people who got you in this mess.       

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

7 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Yes it does. Derby disappearing and having to climb their way back protects ALL the other EFL clubs from being in a similar mess in the future. And that's the EFL's role - to act on behalf of all their members.

It's not foolproof protection but it sends a message to owners, a mighty powerful one, that if they go rogue, they're putting their club's very existence at risk. That's the EFL protecting ALL of us, as best it can.

If the opposite happens, Derby "get away with it" and pay a pittance, a precedent is set that might just encourage more dodgy owners to act like Mel Morris - and as we've seen, that's no good for anyone.

And for the benefit of any visiting Derby fans, I have no beef with you or your club. Whatsoever. But I certainly do with the people who got you in this mess.       

I do see that and it's a fair point, but I don't think I agree because Mel Morris isn't getting the punishment. The regulation has now been tightened up and there are good proposals to tighten it up further so the chance of exactly this happening agains is less now than I think it was. But if someone was to do exactly what Mel Morris did and everything was the same again, then that dodgy **** wouldn't get punished either.

Also - as a side point, it's not the EFL's choice, it's HMRC. If you were to say the EFL punishment for Derby should be stronger - mandatory relegation instead of points for instance - I'd definitely agree with that. Can't say I'm happy with the possibility that they'll dig themselves out of trouble and keep their Championship place. That really would stink.

[Merrick's Marvels]

5 minutes ago, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

I do see that and it's a fair point, but I don't think I agree because Mel Morris isn't getting the punishment.

I agree which is why Mel Morris, and other owners responsible for sinking football clubs into the ground, are massive ucnts. Imo.

Morris will walk away. Derby County football club and their supporters will suffer. It stinks. 

Twas ever thus - when the rich and powerful ufck up, it's not the rich and powerful who suffer the consequences, by and large. Well, not rich and powerful men anyway. But that's a whole other discussion. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels

[Mr Popodopolous]

To echo what others have said.

I don't want Derby to go pop but otoh, them going bankrupt and having to work their way back from I dunno wherever the new Bury or Macclesfield started or AFC Wimbledon- that would send a very powerful message.

It would be moral hazard in action.

The above is mainly if they get 3/4 of the tax bill cut/waived.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[JackofromSanJavier]

Just had a kicker of a tax bill from UK HMRC today - I suspect that if I try to swerve it I'll be let off then!

[BTRFTG]

21 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Priorities set by law  

As I previously said, HMRC will make judgments on a case by case basis, so that they receive as much as they possibly can.

There is no bluff. Selling every registered player isn't going to raise the £37m needed to exceed the offer on the table. There are no assets to sell other than players and a few bits of silverware.

Then so be it. Marginal hit for HMRC, Morris still on hook to MSD, stadium nobody wants & Derby remembered not by my generation as a fine football club but by this and future generations as mickey taking cheats.

If you now claim zero relationship between Morris' beneficial interests I think HMRC lawyers should look into any personal guarantees directors made within accounts (published or not,) as from what you're arguing Derby FC should have been wound up years ago given they have been trading beyond their ability to repay debts.

[Hxj]

Latest update announced.

One month extension to proof of funds for the season.  Presumably February is funded by the sales to date.

Sounds bad,  No further offers and no preferred bidder.

Percy's tweet is interesting, suggests that HMRC are not rolling over at this time.

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Hxj

[chinapig]

3 hours ago, Hxj said:

Latest update announced.

One month extension to proof of funds for the season.  Presumably February is funded by the sales to date.

Sounds bad,  No further offers and no preferred bidder.

Percy's tweet is interesting, suggests that HMRC are not rolling over at this time.

 

Yet the BBC is still saying HMRC will accept considerably less than owed. I imagine this is being spun by the Administrators as I doubt it's coming direct from HMRC.

BBC News - Derby County: EFL extends deadline for administrators to provide proof of funding
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60146360

[Hxj]

4 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Yet the BBC is still saying HMRC will accept considerably less than owed.

The trouble is 'accepting considerably less than owed' is not the same as 'accepting that others can be paid out in preference to us, despite the statute'.

I am beginning to wonder if the real problem is that none of the deals work in the real world, but nobody wants to be responsible for pressing the liquidation button.

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The trouble is 'accepting considerably less than owed' is not the same as 'accepting that others can be paid out in preference to us, despite the statute'.

I am beginning to wonder if the real problem is that none of the deals work in the real world, but nobody wants to be responsible for pressing the liquidation button.

Morris left them in the shit.  He bailed at a bad time, the worst time.

[Sleepy1968]

9 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The trouble is 'accepting considerably less than owed' is not the same as 'accepting that others can be paid out in preference to us, despite the statute'.

I am beginning to wonder if the real problem is that none of the deals work in the real world, but nobody wants to be responsible for pressing the liquidation button.

Can you give me the idiots guide to how liquidation follows on from administration? Who can apply to put the company into compusary winding up now? When can creditor's petition the court for a winding up order? How does it work?

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I saw a quote, that stupid MP is whining again. Pauline Latham reportedly said that the EFL 'aren't playing fair'.

She is I assume, Derbyshire's answer to Donald Trump.

Plus reportedly the administrators have blocked the departure of Tom Lawrence.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[sephjnr]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Plus reportedly the administrators have blocked the departure of Tom Lawrence.

So the admins are taking the piss, yes? The entire point of a fire sale is that they can't be picky on the money they get, yet somehow they're finding a way.

[Davefevs]

Quantuma will do well to get any football business after this if it all goes pear shaped.  In fact their whole business could suffer I guess.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, sephjnr said:

So the admins are taking the piss, yes? The entire point of a fire sale is that they can't be picky on the money they get, yet somehow they're finding a way.

It's not like any football administration I've seen before.

The first duty of administrators is to the creditors- is this being fulfilled?

They almost deserve to go bust because of how they're continuing in administration.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[P'head Red]

3 minutes ago, sephjnr said:

So the admins are taking the piss, yes? The entire point of a fire sale is that they can't be picky on the money they get, yet somehow they're finding a way.

Funny isn't it? They apparently block his departure, but can't (yet) prove they'll pay his wages after February?

Edited January 27, 2022 by P'head Red

[Hxj]

15 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

Can you give me the idiots guide to how liquidation follows on from administration? Who can apply to put the company into compusary winding up now? When can creditor's petition the court for a winding up order? How does it work?

Whilst Administrators are in place only they can put the company into liquidation.  They apply to the Court and can be appointed Liquidators as well. 

[Hxj]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The first duty of administrators is to the creditors- is this being fulfilled?

I would say it was at the moment.  The club is clearly considerably more valuable with a decent first team squad, so whilst there are bidders sniffing around I would give the Administrators the benefit of the doubt until Sunday lunchtime.

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I would say it was at the moment.  The club is clearly considerably more valuable with a decent first team squad, so whilst there are bidders sniffing around I would give the Administrators the benefit of the doubt until Sunday lunchtime.

My thoughts as well. If they think they can get more for Lawrence (or anyone else) on Monday than they can now, then they can fairly argue to hold onto him until then imo. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Marvin]

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It's not like any football administration I've seen before.

The first duty of administrators is to the creditors- is this being fulfilled?

They almost deserve to go bust because of how they're continuing in administration.

No doubt a new phoenix administrator will rise in its place. 

[sephjnr]

18 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It's not like any football administration I've seen before.

The first duty of administrators is to the creditors- is this being fulfilled?

They almost deserve to go bust because of how they're continuing in administration.

More to the point, who's in the position to sue the admins if it's seen that they're deliberately not taking money in to give to creditors? The club itself (thus, MM)? the HMRC?

Edited January 27, 2022 by sephjnr

[slartibartfast]

20 minutes ago, sephjnr said:

So the admins are taking the piss, yes? The entire point of a fire sale is that they can't be picky on the money they get, yet somehow they're finding a way.

It's the Derby way, it's what they do .

[AnotherDerbyFan]

10 minutes ago, sephjnr said:

More to the point, who's in the position to sue the admins if it's seen that they're deliberately not taking money in to give to creditors? The club itself (thus, MM)? the HMRC?

There is a common confusion that administration means a club MUST sell as many players as possible to cover the debt.

The role of administrators is to give as much money as possible to the creditors. As things stand, there are 3 bidders willing to take over (however, all with different conditions). As long as there are bidders willing to take over, the creditors will get more money by NOT selling all of the players. 

To get to a position where someone can be named PB, one of two things has to happen.

1. Mel covers some of the MSD loan
2. MFC/WWFC claims are dismissed/cancelled

[Midred]

52 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It's not like any football administration I've seen before.

The first duty of administrators is to the creditors- is this being fulfilled?

They almost deserve to go bust because of how they're continuing in administration.

Are their administraters as independant as their auditors?

[Mr Popodopolous]

I suppose there is the argument that a firesale wouldn't generate much for the creditors either.

When one compares it to Bury however, Derby are getting a fair bit of leeway?

[Midred]

6 minutes ago, Midred said:

Are their administraters as independant as their auditors?

Are they working for the benefit of the creditors or the club?

[Hxj]

12 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

As things stand, there are 3 bidders willing to take over

The impression given is that no one actually wants to bid enough to ensure that the club remains within the EFL at all, even taking the stadium out of the equation, let alone remaining with a 15 point penalty next season.

Given any post-Administration business plan and/or embargo imposed it will be really difficult to keep your senior squad together next season. particularly with the large number out of contract in the summer.  From my perspective it is beginning to look like a short sharp death now or a long lingering one over the next couple of seasons.  There are 10 or so ex-Premier League clubs in division 1 or below. Its not an easy place to get out of.

[Midred]

1 minute ago, Hxj said:

The impression given is that no one actually wants to bid enough to ensure that the club remains within the EFL at all, even taking the stadium out of the equation, let alone remaining with a 15 point penalty next season.

Given any post-Administration business plan and/or embargo imposed it will be really difficult to keep your senior squad together next season. particularly with the large number out of contract in the summer.  From my perspective it is beginning to look like a short sharp death now or a long lingering one over the next couple of seasons.  There are 10 or so ex-Premier League clubs in division 1 or below. Its not an easy place to get out of.

With no parachute payments.

[Robin101]

Perhaps this is a terrible thing to say, but does no one else think that Derby fans might actually have quite a lot of fun following their club from Division 10 back to the football league? A phoenix Derby County would be playing at a decent level within a handful of seasons. 

I appreciate that there's people's jobs on the line, and the economic hit to the region would be significant. But from a purely footballing perspective?

[Midred]

3 minutes ago, Robin101 said:

Perhaps this is a terrible thing to say, but does no one else think that Derby fans might actually have quite a lot of fun following their club from Division 10 back to the football league? A phoenix Derby County would be playing at a decent level within a handful of seasons. 

I appreciate that there's people's jobs on the line, and the economic hit to the region would be significant. But from a purely footballing perspective?

Penzance on a Tuesday night?

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 minutes ago, Midred said:

Are they working for the benefit of the creditors or the club?

I always thought that the first, possibly sole duty of administrators was to creditors but a few have suggested on here that indeed the current policy does serve their interests.

Another interesting snippet I read, Derby have a policy of not selling players to Nottingham Forest.

In normal times fair enough, but if it's the best or sole offer does this clash with duty to creditors?

I hope that both creditors and perhaps Nottingham Forest are watching developments closely.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[AnotherDerbyFan]

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I suppose there is the argument that a firesale wouldn't generate much for the creditors either.

When one compares it to Bury however, Derby are getting a fair bit of leeway?

The difference between Derby and Bury is the number of people who have made their voices heard. Without the political pressure I'm certain the EFL would have been stricter in their approach.

10 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The impression given is that no one actually wants to bid enough to ensure that the club remains within the EFL at all, even taking the stadium out of the equation, let alone remaining with a 15 point penalty next season.

Given any post-Administration business plan and/or embargo imposed it will be really difficult to keep your senior squad together next season. particularly with the large number out of contract in the summer.  From my perspective it is beginning to look like a short sharp death now or a long lingering one over the next couple of seasons.  There are 10 or so ex-Premier League clubs in division 1 or below. Its not an easy place to get out of.

Bidder 1 - Asking price met, doesn't want to purchase the stadium, may or may not be willing to deal with the two claims

Bidder 2 - Asking price met including stadium, but MFC/WWFC claims need to be dealt with first

Bidder 3 - Mel and the Admins have to knock a bit off what they're asking

 

All 3 are willing to pay what is needed provided stadium or claims are out of the picture. 
If the claims are either dismissed or they're ruled as non-footballing creditors, a PB will be announced with them putting in enough to avoid the 15 point deduction.

I don't follow your line of thinking regarding the business plan making it difficult to keep the squad together. Other than Byrne, Bielik, Lawrence and Jozwiak, there aren't many who're on high wages even for L1 level. I can't see the busines plan preventing us from keeping most of them.  It's well known that most will be signing new deals as soon as the restrictions are lifted. If we manage to stay up, Lawrence will likely be staying too.
Despite the restrictions this season, Rooney was still able to pull a very good squad together and I have no doubt he'd do a better job in the upcoming summer.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I always thought that the first, possibly sole duty of administrators was to creditors but a few have suggested on here that indeed the current policy does serve their interests.

Another interesting snippet I read, Derby have a policy of not selling players to Nottingham Forest.

In normal times fair enough, but if it's the best or sole offer does this clash with duty to creditors?

I hope that both creditors and perhaps Nottingham Forest are watching developments closely.

Because we rejected a derisory offer for Buchanan? I think it was so bad, we would have been better off letting his contract expire in the summer and get the standard compensation for player under 24.

[lenred]

6 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Because we rejected a derisory offer for Buchanan? I think it was so bad, we would have been better off letting his contract expire in the summer and get the standard compensation for player under 24.

If you reach the summer…..

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Because we rejected a derisory offer for Buchanan? I think it was so bad, we would have been better off letting his contract expire in the summer and get the standard compensation for player under 24.

If it was the biggest bid then I hope they are watching- or creditors are anyway? Although if it was a derisory bid then perhaps...

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting post by John Percy- and an interesting thread by a SENSIBLE Derby fan who seems to have pulled some of the threads together,

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Derby are not a special case.

Theoretically maybe. But do you really think the EFL see them as equivalent to Bury? They knew they could let Bury die with very little backlash despite their role in waving through dodgy owners.

Likewise the media whose response to Bury's demise was basically "Oh dear, never mind, ooh look Man Utd have tweeted something we can make a clickbait story out of".

[REDOXO]

I’m so confused now! Bidders have met the asking price of a club with in excess of 25m in inland revenue debt and up to or maybe beyond another 25m of debt to various loan sharks etc plus all the local businesses and ongoing cash flow to players?
 

There is no ground that belongs to the club, the ground actually belongs to a shell within a shell company that is controlled by the guy that didn’t pay the taxes of his players and there are outstanding claims from football clubs who contend they have suffered tangible losses from the actions of the former owner!

Yet three groups have met the asking price?…..But there is no preferred bidder because the administrator can not quantify what the price needs to be for an exit, thus their can not be an asking price. Even if there were a tangible asking price it would be the amount that covers debt with unsecured debtors getting no more than 25p on the pound and an expectation that at a minimum the inland revenue would except 25% down payment and a payment plan to run for years at an interest rate of about 4% and Mel Morris paying back the money he personally secured from the loan sharks. 
 

Yep I can see how The EFL, Wycombe and Gibson are completely responsible for this shit show. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more possible solution as far as the Middlesbrough and Wycombe cases go too.

1. Derby get taken over but the claims are still to be heard/pending.
2. New owners can choose to honour it- however if the claims are upheld or upheld albeit with a lower amount it matters not what the new owner or the club say because...
3. ...They would be football creditors- Embargo? -15? Or- better yet to guarantee payment- you divert central awards and TV money to Middlesbrough and Wycombe, either in full or say 1/3-50% whatever per year until such time as Middlesbrough and Wycombe paid off.

Could you do that cash diversion thing and impose an embargo while said football creditors- if it reached that stage- remain unpaid, or would that be double jeopardy?

You also don't permit a takeover under EFL Regs unless and until such time as there is either a settlement, determination of the claims or an undertaking to contest and if necessary honour such claims by the new owners.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

44 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

All 3 are willing to pay what is needed provided stadium or claims are out of the picture. 
If the claims are either dismissed or they're ruled as non-footballing creditors,

It's easy to appear keen to buy Derby, we've all seen the suitors come and go.  It's also easy to make a conditional bid that you know has no prospect of progressing.

In reality there are no bids that can progress. 

If Middlesbrough and Wycombe want their day in front of the LAP, why don't the Binnies or Appleby simply enter into a period of exclusivity and take them on?

Would Ashley really let a rival take over the club for a few million, or is he looking to cut Morris out completely, which he knows will fail.

[REDOXO]

10 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It's easy to appear keen to buy Derby, we've all seen the suitors come and go.  It's also easy to make a conditional bid that you know has no prospect of progressing.

In reality there are no bids that can progress. 

If Middlesbrough and Wycombe want their day in front of the LAP, why don't the Binnies or Appleby simply enter into a period of exclusivity and take them on?

Would Ashley really let a rival take over the club for a few million, or is he looking to cut Morris out completely, which he knows will fail.

My point exactly.

Quantuma and Derby fans seem to pin their hopes on making Wycombe and Middlesbrough just go away, holding their hands up saying it was all just a big ruse with no hope of winning just like you all said. That simply is not going to happen, but even if it did the issues with the ground the Inland Revenue and Mel Morris personal debt remain. 
 

How on earth can a football club go from being run be a cheat and a liar with its supporters by and large egging him on to having the worst administrators in the history of administration! 
 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It's easy to appear keen to buy Derby, we've all seen the suitors come and go.  It's also easy to make a conditional bid that you know has no prospect of progressing.

In reality there are no bids that can progress. 

If Middlesbrough and Wycombe want their day in front of the LAP, why don't the Binnies or Appleby simply enter into a period of exclusivity and take them on?

Would Ashley really let a rival take over the club for a few million, or is he looking to cut Morris out completely, which he knows will fail.

They can though still remain solvent for as long as MSD keep pumping money in though and I have to ask, what is in it for MSD to keep throwing good money after bad? Or is it a case of chasing their losses in the hope that a preferred bidder pays them in full.

That aside, there is also a two part ruling that suggests a) No club can be in administration for no longer than 18 months- 14 months to get it resolved then and b) No club can start two successive seasons in administation- mid-late March 2023 is the final, final deadline if nothing moves and MSD are happy to keep lending.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Coupon]

The cynic in me thinks that Mel Morris would want the club to fold in order to be able to sell and develop the football ground? I don't know if that is feasible or not! But it would definitely be a theory as to why the goalposts keep moving with regard to bidders/bids.

[REDOXO]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They can though still remain solvent for as long as MSD keep pumping money in though and I have to ask, what is in it for MSD to keep throwing good money after bad?

That aside, there is also a two part ruling that suggests a) No club can be in administration for no longer than 18 months- 14 months to get it resolved then and b) No club can start two successive seasons in administation- mid-late March 2023 is the final, final deadline if nothing moves and MSD are happy to keep lending.

Surely MSD will not be providing unsecured loans, particularly at this stage? The only thing Derby have is a name and a few players, thus who is underwriting any new debt?

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Surely MSD will not be providing unsecured loans, particularly at this stage? The only thing Derby have is a name and a few players, thus who is underwriting any new debt?

Pretty sure their source of funding would be MSD although we can only guess. I did read something that suggested that Mel Morris was allowing borrowing against Pride Park in order to give Derby some loans or somesuch.

Surely though, a good example- and this goes for both MSD and HMRC- would be to pull the plug, to wind up- to show clubs and similar businesses that yes we will wind you up if your debt to us gets out of hand.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[REDOXO]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Pretty sure their source of funding would be MSD although we can only guess.

If any new loans are not secured by an individual/a group/ or company then the only thing that makes sense is MSD is involved with one or all of the bids. 
 

They forgive the debt to them by Morris own the ground and have a stake in the club. Morris himself could be the problem if that’s the case and the whole Wycombe Boro thing is the red herring Gibson says it is. 

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

All 3 are willing to pay what is needed provided stadium or claims are out of the picture. 

My understanding is to date not one of the bids covers that owed to HMRC, let alone guaranteed creditors. What's 'needed' is for Derby to pay it's debts and that includes to the taxpayer. Derby fans shouldn't be so choosy as to what debt they think they should pay and that where they're happy for creditors to whistle. It's that attitude that turns non-plussed fans toward hoping the EFL blow the whistle on Derby one last time.

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

My understanding is to date not one of the bids covers that owed to HMRC, let alone guaranteed creditors. What's 'needed' is for Derby to pay it's debts and that includes to the taxpayer. Derby fans shouldn't be so choosy as to what debt they think they should pay and that where they're happy for creditors to whistle. It's that attitude that turns non-plussed fans toward hoping the EFL blow the whistle on Derby one last time.

I think the talk or what they would like is a 75% reduction on the HMRC debt- seen figures of £7-8m mooted, that's of a £28-29m debt pile to HMRC alone.

Of course in theory if you can pay HMRC around 25%, that means that a court might also rule that dissenting creditors should accept that- and tbh is 25p in the £ to unsecured creditors better than one might reasonably get? Possibly! Cross class cram down etc- if you hit that 25% or so then avoiding a 15 point deduction becomes that much more likely because if unsecured creditors get less then there is a further 15 point deduction.

Football creditors must be met in full and in addition they seem to be trying to bat away the legitimate claims- or at least the legitimate right of the claims to be heard- of Middlesbrough and Wycombe or crammed down to a tiny amount. Heard/classed as unsecured creditors rather than football creditors- that kinda thing.

The lack of contrition from a lot of Derby fans is pretty incredible really- some still claim that their amortisation methods were correct as just one example. A good chunk of them aren't bothered how it's done as long as they still have a club. That bit aside, they still see themselves as victims I reckon a reasonable number of them.

They seem to have a strong % of entitled fans, Derby.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[BTRFTG]

In all this posturing one thing that's gotten lost is what's the value of the ground?

MSD have a charge against the ground - with recent loans that's now probably just over the £20m mark. Now the ground last 'sold' (sic) for a market value of £81m, though never near worth that. Could MSD get £20m back by forcing the sale of the ground for development? Possibly. Would Morris stump up the £20m to MSD to retain the ground for himself? More likely.

Bidders do not appear to have the wherewithal or desire to buy the ground, so are they negotiating to take it on a long term lease? Likely, owing to it's nature, any commercial rent required from a landlord to reflect its value would tip the deal into a capital rather than operating lease (the asset effectively a virtual freehold.) Cash side makes zip difference but in accounting terms it means the asset value and amortization hits the leaseholder account and that could be a major problem for a Div 1 side. Hence back to what's the ground worth?  Say it's £50m and Derby take a 15 year lease. Not only is the football club looking at a couple of a million to lease the ground each year, but they're also having to account for a capital 'loss' of over £3m. Not sure if that gets reflected in the FFP scheme of things but if it does that's a major fly in the ointment.

[BTRFTG]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think the talk or what they would like is a 75% reduction on the HMRC debt- seen figures of £7-8m mooted, that's of a £28-29m debt pile to HMRC alone.

Of course in theory if you can pay HMRC around 25%, that means that a court might also rule that dissenting creditors should accept that- and tbh is 25p in the £ to unsecured creditors better than one might reasonably get? Possibly! Cross class cram down etc- if you hit that 25% or so then avoiding a 15 point deduction becomes that much more likely because if unsecured creditors get less then there is a further 15 point deduction.

Football creditors must be met in full and in addition they seem to be trying to bat away the legitimate claims- or at least the legitimate right of the claims to be heard- of Middlesbrough and Wycombe or crammed down to a tiny amount. Heard/classed as unsecured creditors rather than football creditors- that kinda thing.

The lack of contrition from a lot of Derby fans is pretty incredible really- some still claim that their amortisation methods were correct as just one example. A good chunk of them aren't bothered how it's done as long as they still have a club. That bit aside, they still see themselves as victims I reckon a reasonable number of them.

They seem to have a strong % of entitled fans, Derby.

Indeed, it's as though there's an optional class of debt it's wholly justified to walk away from. HMRC must stand firm on this one and if that means they ultimately get less back whilst sending a strong message to all they aren't to be messed with, then I think that a price worth paying.

[REDOXO]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think the talk or what they would like is a 75% reduction on the HMRC debt- seen figures of £7-8m mooted, that's of a £28-29m debt pile to HMRC alone.

Of course in theory if you can pay HMRC around 25%, that means that a court might also rule that dissenting creditors should accept that- and tbh is 25p in the £ to unsecured creditors better than one might reasonably get? Possibly! Cross class cram down etc.

Football creditors must be met in full and they seem to be trying to bat away the legitimate claims- or at least the legitimate right of the claims to be heard- of Middlesbrough and Wycombe or crammed down to a tiny amount.

The lack of contrition from a lot of Derby fans is pretty incredible really- some still claim that their amortisation methods were correct as just one example. A good chunk of them aren't bothered how it's done as long as they still have a club. That bit aside, they still see themselves as victims I reckon a reasonable number of them.

An attempt at Cross class cram down is interesting thought but in order to cram down debt it would have to be defined! That raises the heat on Derby to settle with Boro and Wycombe and the moment they do they will try and wriggle out of it unless verbiage is put in the agreement. Either way for now it’s a bit of a red herring. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

An attempt at Cross class cram down is interesting thought but in order to cram down debt it would have to be defined! That raises the heat on Derby to settle with Boro and Wycombe and the moment they do they will try and wriggle out of it unless verbiage is put in the agreement. Either way for now it’s a bit of a red herring. 

Like I said earlier- they can try and wriggle out but if ruled in favour of Middlesbrough and Wycombe the EFL can pay it for them perhaps?

Out of Derby's TV money and central awards- until such time as the liability has been met- because if the two clubs get a ruling in their favour, they surely would be classed as football creditors. Could a transfer embargo while the debt is outstanding also be a useful bit of leverage?

[Sleepy1968]

3 hours ago, Robin101 said:

Perhaps this is a terrible thing to say, but does no one else think that Derby fans might actually have quite a lot of fun following their club from Division 10 back to the football league? A phoenix Derby County would be playing at a decent level within a handful of seasons. 

I appreciate that there's people's jobs on the line, and the economic hit to the region would be significant. But from a purely footballing perspective?

You're obviousl;y quite young. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to wait 10-20 years for this to happen.

[REDOXO]

49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Like I said earlier- they can try and wriggle out but if ruled in favour of Middlesbrough and Wycombe the EFL can pay it for them perhaps?

Out of Derby's TV money and central awards- until such time as the liability has been met- because if the two clubs get a ruling in their favour, they surely would be classed as football creditors. Could a transfer embargo while the debt is outstanding also be a useful bit of leverage?

I’m not sure if we are not talking in cross purposes slightly but, I have no idea how long a CCC would take to get through the courts and what point a favorable judgement could be sought to clearly avoid payment to HMRC at any reasonable level in view of the web of deception and double dealing, and out right cheating, by Derby County vis a vis Mel Morris. 
 

Also to what extent would a CCC judgement be allowable under EFL rules and will that effect their golden share. That will have to be tested! 
 

I did say once on the Derby forum once that the corporate veil is pierced once administrators are called in. The administrators have not been particularly open in anything that is going on, simply because they are screwed at every turn and it’s not in their Derby County, Mel Morris or possible bidders interests to really let anyone know the extent of the Shit baggery That’s led the supporters to be pleading with anyone who will listen. 
 

But what we do know is Quantuma are not very good, Derby only have enough money for a month and no one has put forward a bid that covers enough bases to make it viable as of yet. 
 

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by REDOXO

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Despite the restrictions this season, Rooney was still able to pull a very good squad together and I have no doubt he'd do a better job in the upcoming summer.

That is a point many people discussing the football part of this debate, fail to recognise.  He isn’t just playing kids per se like we did in 82, most of those kids are already first teamers of reasonable experience.  He has done a good job though.

[Mr Popodopolous]

25 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That is a point many people discussing the football part of this debate, fail to recognise.  He isn’t just playing kids per se like we did in 82, most of those kids are already first teamers of reasonable experience.  He has done a good job though.

Agreed- not saying he hasn't done well and if he pulls it off, overturning a -21 at our level with a prevailing uncertainty- this would clearly be a notable feat but we consider players such as...

1. Roos and Allsop- before them Marshall but he was out of favour for some reason even prior to administration?
2. Byrne and then at the other end of the age scale, Ebosele. Can he play RB or is he higher up the pitch though?
3. Davies, Jagielka, Stearman is a bit of a Dad's Army and certainly not ideal for a high line but otoh with the right tactics their experience is invaluable.
4. Buchanan and then covering or competing, an experienced Forsyth. Dylan Williams is quite highly thought of IIRC?
5. Knight, Bird, Shinnie, Sibley and of course Bielik- the latter if fit is a very good player and the 3 other remaining players are talented youngsters and more actually. Shinnie struck me as being a competent midfielder, at a reported £30k to Wigan a bit of a steal?
6. Lawrence- the fact that some upper Championship and even some lower to upper middle PL clubs are being linked says all you need to know! He's not had the best of times there but been very good this season or strong in a struggling side end product wise anyway? Jozwiak on the other side is a Poland international with time on his side who cost a few million.
7. Up front perhaps at the thinner end- although Kazim-Richards was injured for many months only to be back within 2! Baldock was there but no longer- but both have/had experience at this level. Young but promising strikers in Plange and Stretton can chip in.

To stay up would be notable- overcoming a -21 definitely is and Rooney after some initial moaning has knuckled down and carried himself well- but it's perhaps not the miracle to end all miracles that some would portray.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Listening to Radio Derby, including varied fans and Kieran Maguire have to say a few of my views I have reconsidered a little.

I demand this and that- and yes they need to exit administration on the EFL's terms but why e.g. the cases could not be heard AFTER takeover I'm unsure. Let takeover happen first but under some binding agreement to negotiate or go via EFL Arbitration.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Might also add, was slightly interested to learn that this isn't the first time that Derby have been in the financial doldrums- I saw something about our own issues 40 years ago and it listed Derby and Darlington among clubs also with financial troubles. In the last generation though- say 35-40 years, it appears to happen 2-3 times a generation there.

Early to mid 1980s, High Court etc. Yet within a few years...

...Then...

Some very notable players in there- but how affordable were they??

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/page/the-history-of-derby-county

Very boom and bust?? 2, 3 times in 40 years!?

[Port Said Red]

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Might also add, was slightly interested to learn that this isn't the first time that Derby have been in the financial doldrums- I saw something about our own issues 40 years ago and it listed Derby and Darlington among clubs also with financial troubles. In the last generation though- say 35-40 years, it appears to happen 2-3 times a generation there.

Early to mid 1980s, High Court etc. Yet within a few years...

...Then...

Some very notable players in there- but how affordable were they??

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/page/the-history-of-derby-county

Very boom and bust?? 2, 3 times in 40 years!?

I have always associated them with being in financial difficulty, a bit like the gas I suppose. 

I seem to remember an article many years ago that said that the origin of their money worries was the old Baseball Ground. As the name suggests it was never designed for football and they constantly spent money trying to get the pitch and drainage right. The stadium itself couldn't really be used to generate income away from football either. It was also positioned badly for expansion and on land that would not be worth much for development.

The new stadium was an absolute must for them, but it looks like Mel Morris has outmanouvered them by taking that into his portfolio.

[lenred]

2 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

I have always associated them with being in financial difficulty, a bit like the gas I suppose. 

I seem to remember an article many years ago that said that the origin of their money worries was the old Baseball Ground. As the name suggests it was never designed for football and they constantly spent money trying to get the pitch and drainage right. The stadium itself couldn't really be used to generate income away from football either. It was also positioned badly for expansion and on land that would not be worth much for development.

The new stadium was an absolute must for them, but it looks like Mel Morris has outmanouvered them by taking that into his portfolio.

With Robert Maxwell as their owner back in the day Id imagine there were plenty of financial ‘going’s on’ during his tenure, given his background! 

[Port Said Red]

1 minute ago, lenred said:

With Robert Maxwell as their owner back in the day Id imagine there were plenty of financial ‘going’s on’ during his tenure, given his background! 

Oh yes. Wasn't he also behind the idea of merging Reading and Oxford into the Thames Valley Royals or some such nonsense too?

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, lenred said:

With Robert Maxwell as their owner back in the day Id imagine there were plenty of financial ‘going’s on’ during his tenure, given his background! 

My dad had dealings with Maxwell (not directly) in the 80s in the printing business.  Maxwell was feared by his employees. Nasty piece of business.

[lenred]

Just now, Davefevs said:

My dad had dealings with Maxwell (not directly) in the 80s in the printing business.  Maxwell was feared by his employees. Nasty piece of business.

A vile man by all accounts. Some of his kin don’t seem much better either…but that’s a different story for a different thread! 

[lenred]

2 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Oh yes. Wasn't he also behind the idea of merging Reading and Oxford into the Thames Valley Royals or some such nonsense too?

Would need to do some reading up as I was still in single digits when he was around! But he definitely owned Oxford at some point so wouldn’t surprise me. 

[Port Said Red]

4 minutes ago, lenred said:

Would need to do some reading up as I was still in single digits when he was around! But he definitely owned Oxford at some point so wouldn’t surprise me. 

I just had a look at this as a reminder.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Valley_Royals_proposal

[BTRFTG]

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

My dad had dealings with Maxwell (not directly) in the 80s in the printing business.  Maxwell was feared by his employees. Nasty piece of business.

I met and lunched with him a few times in his apartment and have many mates who worked (still work) at his publications. Odd fellow, never to be trusted, as was known at the time.

Just read John Preston's biog of him, decent account of the times and of those who knew him. 

[Davefevs]

21 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

I met and lunched with him a few times in his apartment and have many mates who worked (still work) at his publications. Odd fellow, never to be trusted, as was known at the time.

Just read John Preston's biog of him, decent account of the times and of those who knew him. 

My dad wouldn’t release a job because Maxwell had stopped a cheque.  The finance director said he’d pay once the job had been received.  My dad dug his heels in.  FD shit himself because he’d have to tell Maxwell the job would be late.  A new cheque was couriered down, dad took it to the bank, asked for it to be specially presented.  Next day Bank confirmed it as paid, Dad released the job to be couriered to Maxwell’s company.

Next day, FD phones up to say he’d received the job, but they were gonna stop the cheque and have to pay later.  My dad told him he had paid the bank to have it specially presented and it had been “paid” by Maxwell’s bankers, so a stop wouldn’t work.  FD shit himself again.

 

[Merrick's Marvels]

32 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Just read John Preston's biog of him, decent account of the times and of those who knew him. 

Or Tom Bower's. No punches pulled.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels

[Merrick's Marvels]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

My dad wouldn’t release a job because Maxwell had stopped a cheque.  The finance director said he’d pay once the job had been received.  My dad dug his heels in.  FD shit himself because he’d have to tell Maxwell the job would be late.  A new cheque was couriered down, dad took it to the bank, asked for it to be specially presented.  Next day Bank confirmed it as paid, Dad released the job to be couriered to Maxwell’s company.

Next day, FD phones up to say he’d received the job, but they were gonna stop the cheque and have to pay later.  My dad told him he had paid the bank to have it specially presented and it had been “paid” by Maxwell’s bankers, so a stop wouldn’t work.  FD shit himself again.

 

Great story!