Derby County

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting stuff and I even agree with bits of it Mel Morris's views ie the bits on Parachute Payments, and the problems that the EFL have had pursuing newly promoted clubs although I question his claims last September about most having breached FFP on the way up.

All the same had the EFL said publicly in July 2019 for example that yes, they considered the Aston Villa accounts to be worthy of further scrutiny and a soft embargo while so doing- I wonder if there would have been any chance of the PL handing it back to the EFL for said further forensic analysis.

Really the FA should do FFP, Profit and Sustainability regulations are harmonised loss limits aside so it should follow clubs up and down irrespective with a consistent sanctioning regime.

I remember talk of a Jurisdictional Bridge when the Salary Cap debate was ongoing in late 2020, early 2021 but nobody discusses it anymore. Basically means that the EFL could pursue promoted clubs properly if deemed potentially in breach. That said, I accept the premise that the bulk will have exceeded £13m in the specific year of promotion but I expect that the bulk did hit the 3 year target just about, especially as promotion bonuses are excluded from FFP calculations as Mel Morris surely well knows.

The bit about exceptional items also I found of interest- especially player sales being shifted between accounting periods to help with compliance, I'm not against it entirely for example if a bid or negotiations begin in late May or late June- and conclude a few days into June or July- at the end of one and beginning of another accounting period then that's one thing and could be seen as a bit of a grey area- but as a premise and in principle it seems quite dubious to me!

I still would like him or someone on here to quantify exactly where in Middlesbrough's 2015/16 accounts this sale of a tax loss appeared- and either bolstered their revenue or helped them to swerve an FFP fine through pushing the FFP loss under £13m.

I have looked at that seasons accounts many, many times and I'm struggling to classify it. Is there something obvious I am missing?

Edited February 4, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I remember talk of a Jurisdictional Bridge when the Salary Cap debate was ongoing in late 2020, early 2021 but nobody discusses it anymore. Basically means that the EFL could pursue promoted clubs properly if deemed potentially in breach.

R E G U L A T O R

[Mr Popodopolous]

43 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

R E G U L A T O R

What are the FA for, if one of their key duties isn't regulation? Although they have been of little use for some time now...

However I'd hope that an Independent Regulator would basically apply it in this manner.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What are the FA for, if one of their key duties doesn't include regulation? Although they have been of little use for some time now...

However I'd hope that an Independent Regulator would basically apply it in this manner.

The FA has no credibility in this was Tracey Crouch's view when interviewed on the Athletic's Business of Sport podcast and/or Kieran Maguire's Price of Football podcast.

Compromised by vested interests was her view, by which I guess she may have meant the Premier League. In any event she is clearly not impressed by the FA as a governing body in general.

[REDOXO]

2 hours ago, Show Me The Money! said:

He does have a point about QPR. Same could probably be said about Villa too. If your beach FFP but get promoted you get away with it.

Exactly. The rules are don’t get caught and if you do get promoted. Not an open invitation for this bullshitery is it? 
 

Either way Derby did get caught and didn’t get promoted. 

[REDOXO]

2 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Qpr didn't get away with it, they were heavly fined and suffered from transfer embargo,

In fact it's only thr last 18 months that they finally recovered,

Villa will face the music if they get relegated

QPR stupidly got relegated! What a message. Break as many FFP rules you like as long as you get promoted and don’t get relegated! 

Edited February 5, 2022 by REDOXO

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

9 hours ago, REDOXO said:

I agree but those clubs were not hauling 1000s of away fans to all local games.
 

This is the first big (I use the term advisedly) club to go under.

As you use The Combined County’s as an example, how Would the equivalent of Hartley Wintney in Derbyshire cope with the angry DCFC following. It’s not feasible. 
 

The SFA put Rangers in The lowest pro division they could as at least there were some facilities. Can you imagine Rangers away at(enter random jock village here)

Unfortunately there has to be pragmatism what ever happens. The West Nottinghamshire League is where they should go but don’t expect it.
 

So I think finally DCFC will get recognized as a ‘big club’ (In appropriately small letters)

This is definitely a good point. Derby have a bigger support than Wimbledon had. For the record though we took more than 3000 to most games in our first season. Separated only from the pitch by a railing or in some case a rope. Here's a picture of Chessington and Hook's ground which was typical.

 

[REDOXO]

4 minutes ago, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

This is definitely a good point. Derby have a bigger support than Wimbledon had. For the record though we took more than 3000 to most games in our first season. Separated only from the pitch by a railing or in some case a rope. Here's a picture of Chessington and Hook's ground which was typical.

 

Know it well. I was brought up in Guildford! 
 

I went to Plough Lane many times. I think I was there for their first game in the top flight Everton 1/1? 
 

Hauling huge traveling support regionally with all respect to Aldershot/Wimbledon is a different issue with Derby, despite what is right and wrong in principle! 

[BTRFTG]

12 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Signally, Morris' ramblings would better able to be scrutinized had his companies published unimpaired accounts - oh the irony. 

I may not know much about anything but as an ex Estates Director I do know a bit about property asset valuation, including bespoke assets. As with his reference to amortization it strikes me Morris fails to appreciate the problem isn't that there are options available for valuation, rather that when one picks an option one should stick to it.

Think of it like this. A football stadium is a a large, capital hungry, expensive to maintain and largely underutilized structure. It serves primarily to facilitate business income for its occupant. That's why it makes sense to split such entities and why you don't see estate agents in your High Street regularly flogging them, there being few buyers. So how much is a stadium worth? 

If you're an investor not owing a football club the answer would be a measure of how much income might be generated each year by the facility? Rent from the football club, income from other events, conferencing, hospitality, advertising et al. When questioned about Derby's valuation, assuming an income based valuation, Morris gave an odd and contradictory answer. On one hand he reminded football affords only 30 days income, that fitting in events around football is problematic, that with very high overheads such events make nowhere near as much money as folks imagine. On the other he said  he'd researched a solution to show Derby could deliver 100 such events each year delivering £12m of non-football related income. Impressive. Now were I a potential buyer my first thoughts would be why's Morris selling this cash cow and please may I see the books to show actually how much income has historically been generated? Accounts being problematic Morris opts for another valuation option, one most normal folks wouldn't adopt when assessing value.

Morris adopts a perfectly acceptable option, it's called Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) and in simple terms asks how much would I have to spend to replace the functionality of what's already there? This works fine provided you also accept the caveats associated with its methodology (that's the bit with which Morris has a problem.) It's useful for insurance purposes but unlike housing (where there's always demand,) never produces a value higher than its actual cost of replacement. It's the reverse of something some of you will have encountered when taking out buildings insurance on your home - why's the insured value less than I paid for it? It's a theoretical value, one unlikely to be used. It's not a value you'd achieve if selling on the open market. Morris argued it would cost £81m to replace Pride Park. Perhaps he's right, but the question would be why would you ever do that? That's the problem with his rationale, he's picks and chooses to suit.

In the near future he may well be looking at need of a third method of valuation, that of Residual Land Value and I can tell him for nothing that'll be low single digits.

Now, if only Morris had explained how, under Derby's employ, Tom Ince's mother became the highest paid scout in British football despite her knowing little about football....

Edited February 5, 2022 by BTRFTG

[AnAstonVillafan]

12 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Qpr didn't get away with it, they were heavly fined and suffered from transfer embargo,

In fact it's only thr last 18 months that they finally recovered,

Villa will face the music if they get relegated

The three year EFL investigation over the league’s Profitability & Sustainability Rules concluded with Villa complying with all the regulations while in England’s second division. The Premier League also reviewed and confirmed compliance in accordance with its own policies and procedures.

 

FFP is too complicated for clever people not to work around, and too crude to actually protect clubs, except in extreme situations.
 

[Monkeh]

49 minutes ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

The three year EFL investigation over the league’s Profitability & Sustainability Rules concluded with Villa complying with all the regulations while in England’s second division. The Premier League also reviewed and confirmed compliance in accordance with its own policies and procedures.

 

FFP is too complicated for clever people not to work around, and too crude to actually protect clubs, except in extreme situations.
 

I wasn't aware of that, then that's fine then thanks for informing me

[Monkeh]

25 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Just had a look at the Derby forum. They really are deluded. The Morris letter is seen as saving the day, that if the EFL reject it, it is clear EFL have it in for them etc etc. Why not ask Morris to pay HMRC , that will sort the sale of the club, or deposit £10m to cover the WW and Boro claims (which he is confident in winning - with probable justification) . So Morris yet again is posturing, and has not opened his cheque book to solve the real issues. That Derby have still not filed accounts makes it even more ridiculous to blame EFL. Derby fans blaming Boro or EFL are letting Morris yet again off the hook. He is the reason they will be liquidated and cannot find a buyer. He can solve all of this by paying his dues. Very very easy Mel. Stop writing nonsense and start writing cheques if you want to save Derby. 

Indeed,

I dont care about the mfc and the ww claim, that's for them to sort out,

Once again to you thick Derby fans

PAY THE HMRC IN FULL!

[BTRFTG]

26 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Derby have still not filed accounts

Is that still the case? I thought they had until last Monday to provide EFL with all their unimpaired accounts, but when the one month extension to show they had sufficient funds to see the season through was offered the accounts condition appeared to get overlooked. Does EFL and Companies House have the accounts yet? If not, what's the EFL deadline?

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

The three year EFL investigation over the league’s Profitability & Sustainability Rules concluded with Villa complying with all the regulations while in England’s second division. The Premier League also reviewed and confirmed compliance in accordance with its own policies and procedures.

 

FFP is too complicated for clever people not to work around, and too crude to actually protect clubs, except in extreme situations.
 

I guess Villa’s argument was that they’d sell Grealish (and others?) at the end of the season had they not gone up and needed to find £x million.

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Signally, Morris' ramblings would better able to be scrutinized had his companies published unimpaired accounts - oh the irony. 

I may not know much about anything but as an ex Estates Director I do know a bit about property asset valuation, including bespoke assets. As with his reference to amortization it strikes me Morris fails to appreciate the problem isn't that there are options available for valuation, rather that when one picks an option one should stick to it.

Think of it like this. A football stadium is a a large, capital hungry, expensive to maintain and largely underutilized structure. It serves primarily to facilitate business income for its occupant. That's why it makes sense to split such entities and why you don't see estate agents in your High Street regularly flogging them, there being few buyers. So how much is a stadium worth? 

If you're an investor not owing a football club the answer would be a measure of how much income might be generated each year by the facility? Rent from the football club, income from other events, conferencing, hospitality, advertising et al. When questioned about Derby's valuation, assuming an income based valuation, Morris gave an odd and contradictory answer. On one hand he reminded football affords only 30 days income, that fitting in events around football is problematic, that with very high overheads such events make nowhere near as much money as folks imagine. On the other he said  he'd researched a solution to show Derby could deliver 100 such events each year delivering £12m of non-football related income. Impressive. Now were I a potential buyer my first thoughts would be why's Morris selling this cash cow and please may I see the books to show actually how much income has historically been generated? Accounts being problematic Morris opts for another valuation option, one most normal folks wouldn't adopt when assessing value.

Morris adopts a perfectly acceptable option, it's called Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) and in simple terms asks how much would I have to spend to replace the functionality of what's already there? This works fine provided you also accept the caveats associated with its methodology (that's the bit with which Morris has a problem.) It's useful for insurance purposes but unlike housing (where there's always demand,) never produces a value higher than its actual cost of replacement. It's the reverse of something some of you will have encountered when taking out buildings insurance on your home - why's the insured value less than I paid for it? It's a theoretical value, one unlikely to be used. It's not a value you'd achieve if selling on the open market. Morris argued it would cost £81m to replace Pride Park. Perhaps he's right, but the question would be why would you ever do that? That's the problem with his rationale, he's picks and chooses to suit.

In the near future he may well be looking at need of a third method of valuation, that of Residual Land Value and I can tell him for nothing that'll be low single digits.

Now, if only Morris had explained how, under Derby's employ, Tom Ince's mother became the highest paid scout in British football despite her knowing little about football....

great post….

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

The three year EFL investigation over the league’s Profitability & Sustainability Rules concluded with Villa complying with all the regulations while in England’s second division. The Premier League also reviewed and confirmed compliance in accordance with its own policies and procedures.

 

FFP is too complicated for clever people not to work around, and too crude to actually protect clubs, except in extreme situations.
 

I appreciate and understand the statement but I would suggest a couple of caveats as far as the overall picture goes.

1) Why no EFL statement on the matter at hand? A simple "Yes we agree or yes Aston Villa have definitively passed and complied with all relevant P&S regulations" and a case closed would help a lot.

You're also aware of course that the initial decision in 2019 indeed for all clubs can be reviewed down the line- just ask Derby.

2) There are loopholes but they are closing. Had the loophole been been shut regarding Fixed Assets, that would have snookered quite a few clubs. By my reckoning even if you include the HS2 as permissible. Derby, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday would all have been bang to rights sooner- in a world without the fixed asset loophole I make the Aston Villa overspend to 2019 £25-30m.

The EFL also don't like inflated RPTs. Think they pushed back on Birmingham in 2018 and Sheffield Wednesday's questionable ones all the same were within fair value regs.

3) The EFL. They have taken pursuing clubs with a real vigour this summer. I thought the new sanctions that Derby were the first to feel were excellent- especially the Professional Standing one- the PL by comparison are dealing with Everton in a fairly mundane manner so far.

Professional Standing

Squad size not exceeding 23 players of Professional Standing, which means players of any age who have made one appearance- not start but appearance, in any competiton. This doesn't mitigate or offset sanctions however.

Derby it was determined had 19, but initially the EFL were keen to class a load of who made one appearance at Chorley in the Cup as this, and the only reason they played was due to a Covid outbreak.

They were allowed to sign 4 as a result, but under the following terms and conditions:

*No transfer fee

*No loan fee

*Wages per player not exceeding £4.5k per week. Probably issues with signing on fees too.

 *Contract length not EXCEEDING 12 months for a permanent addition or 6 months for a loan.

EFL approval required for all signings.

Sounds like a punishment but it isn't. If you're the EFL you can just say "Well for long as this drags on, this rule in play. Think of the strain on the club, bound to force them to the table- to negotiate on points and business plan. What do we care, rules are being upheld either way".

Indeed if you look at the Derby and Reading Agreed Decisions it's clear that the embargoes were a form of leverage.

Edited February 5, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

In short, the EFL can if circumstances allow, severely restrict clubs in terms of their normal functions.

You know surely @AnAstonVillafan

Just how hemmed in, hell had Aston Villa been under that any club, the implications are pretty terrible.

You mention about protection of clubs with FFP. For me it's not about that as such, unless you mean the competitive integrity and the compliant majority. I'd be utterly relentless regardless of the implications for an individual club.

[Midred]

Monthly rolling deadline?

[ExiledAjax]

42 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Not sure, but if they had been filed it would be in the public domain in seconds, so I assume no. I might be wrong. 

The 31st January deadline in the agreed decision was only in respect of providing accounts to the EFL. It did not include filing on CH.

IIRC companies in insolvency don't have to file on CH (bar those filings necessary as part of the insolvency itself). Happy to be corrected on this if someone knows better.

Unless someone decides to publish yet another open letter detailing the submissions to the EFL, I don't think we'll be told of they met or failed that deadline.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The June order in terms of accounts and the requirements is multi-layered but to cut down a summary to the relevant bits...

1) Restated ie right and accurate accounts for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 to the EFL by 4pm on 31st January 2022.

2) The 2020/21 accounts and the 2021/22 Profit and Sustainability calculations to the EFL by the required deadline for all clubs.

3) Although clubs in administration don't have to submit to CH @ExiledAjax the June order sort of covers that too- says that from 2020/21 onwards even if in administration, they need to make arrangements to publish. Could be the website maybe?

Hopefully SL, Gibson, Couhig and other right minded owners will be holding the EFL to this and Derby's conditions moving forward. 

[BTRFTG]

6 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

The 31st January deadline in the agreed decision was only in respect of providing accounts to the EFL. It did not include filing on CH.

IIRC companies in insolvency don't have to file on CH (bar those filings necessary as part of the insolvency itself). Happy to be corrected on this if someone knows better.

Unless someone decides to publish yet another open letter detailing the submissions to the EFL, I don't think we'll be told of they met or failed that deadline.

Thanks, I knew there's no obligation to file at CH for periods in administration but had thought the administrators would file amended returns for those reporting periods when not in administration. It may be moot but makes a mockery of CH not shutting companies down if failing to file unimpaired accounts within a reasonable timeframe.

[Monkeh]

Mike Ashley has pulled out, blaming the administrators 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Monkeh said:

Mike Ashley has pulled out, blaming the administrators 

And then there were two.

[Monkeh]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

And then there were two.

Indeed, I wouldnt be surprised if it turns out Mel has something to do with the administrators and this is a whole ploy to get the land under pride park

[Hxj]

20 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

And then there were two.

Are there really two - or just one the Binnies - who already know that their bid to buy the club (without the stadium) is not enough to avoid further sanctions next season?

Edited February 6, 2022 by Hxj

[chinapig]

2 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Mike Ashley has pulled out, blaming the administrators 

Has he issued a statement to that effect?

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Are there really two - or just one the Binnies - who already know that their bid to buy the club (without the stadium) is not enough to avoid further sanctions next season?

In which case….and then there was one!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Saw some interesting snippets on Derby forum.

Even with the Derby amortisation method being upheld, a poster whose financial views I rate a lot reckons all things being equal ie no major player sales they would have failed by £20.5m to 2021.

The agreed decision seems fair, although I do wonder if there might have been an amortisation overhang ie still more to amortise to this season and maybe next which might have challenged Derby in meeting the reset £13m target.

It's all history now anyway that side of it.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

On 05/02/2022 at 08:37, BTRFTG said:

Signally, Morris' ramblings would better able to be scrutinized had his companies published unimpaired accounts - oh the irony. 

I may not know much about anything but as an ex Estates Director I do know a bit about property asset valuation, including bespoke assets. As with his reference to amortization it strikes me Morris fails to appreciate the problem isn't that there are options available for valuation, rather that when one picks an option one should stick to it.

Think of it like this. A football stadium is a a large, capital hungry, expensive to maintain and largely underutilized structure. It serves primarily to facilitate business income for its occupant. That's why it makes sense to split such entities and why you don't see estate agents in your High Street regularly flogging them, there being few buyers. So how much is a stadium worth? 

If you're an investor not owing a football club the answer would be a measure of how much income might be generated each year by the facility? Rent from the football club, income from other events, conferencing, hospitality, advertising et al. When questioned about Derby's valuation, assuming an income based valuation, Morris gave an odd and contradictory answer. On one hand he reminded football affords only 30 days income, that fitting in events around football is problematic, that with very high overheads such events make nowhere near as much money as folks imagine. On the other he said  he'd researched a solution to show Derby could deliver 100 such events each year delivering £12m of non-football related income. Impressive. Now were I a potential buyer my first thoughts would be why's Morris selling this cash cow and please may I see the books to show actually how much income has historically been generated? Accounts being problematic Morris opts for another valuation option, one most normal folks wouldn't adopt when assessing value.

Morris adopts a perfectly acceptable option, it's called Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) and in simple terms asks how much would I have to spend to replace the functionality of what's already there? This works fine provided you also accept the caveats associated with its methodology (that's the bit with which Morris has a problem.) It's useful for insurance purposes but unlike housing (where there's always demand,) never produces a value higher than its actual cost of replacement. It's the reverse of something some of you will have encountered when taking out buildings insurance on your home - why's the insured value less than I paid for it? It's a theoretical value, one unlikely to be used. It's not a value you'd achieve if selling on the open market. Morris argued it would cost £81m to replace Pride Park. Perhaps he's right, but the question would be why would you ever do that? That's the problem with his rationale, he's picks and chooses to suit.

In the near future he may well be looking at need of a third method of valuation, that of Residual Land Value and I can tell him for nothing that'll be low single digits.

Now, if only Morris had explained how, under Derby's employ, Tom Ince's mother became the highest paid scout in British football despite her knowing little about football....

Still on about the stadium? The sale price was proven to be fair and the decision wasn't even appealed by the EFL. Move on.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

21 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw some interesting snippets on Derby forum.

Even with the Derby amortisation method being upheld, a poster whose financial views I rate a lot reckons all things being equal ie no major player sales they would have failed by £20.5m to 2021.

The agreed decision seems fair, although I do wonder if there might have been an amortisation overhang ie still more to amortise to this season and maybe next which might have challenged Derby in meeting the reset £13m target.

It's all history now anyway that side of it.

To be honest, I imagine it would have been much lower than that. I think we all know Derby would have lumped as much under 'Covid impairment' as possible.

There's only Lawrence, Bielik and Jozwiak left who were bought for anything above a nominal fee. Based on their contract lengths remaining we'd have been slightly better off in terms of P&S for the two P&S periods you refer to. The period after those though would have been quite a bit worse (3 years to 2024)

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Still on about the stadium? The sale price was proven to be fair and the decision wasn't even appealed by the EFL. Move on.

Then Morris will have no problem selling it for £81m, morally paying off all the debts he's amassed, including best part of £30m to the taxpayer, thus allowing your club to survive. But he won't, as with the rest of your club he's rotten to the core. The ground's worthless, pretty much like your club. Why should other clubs 'move on' from a cheating contrivance that temporarily gave Derby an unfair advantage but which has a real chance of becoming their downfall.

I normally couldn't give two hoots about other clubs but given Derby's two-faced cheating, duplicity and paranoid carping, carping that's even outdone The Scouse in self pity,  I really do hope they go out of business. The quicker the better for all football.

[chinapig]

19 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Then Morris will have no problem selling it for £81m, morally paying off all the debts he's amassed, including best part of £30m to the taxpayer, thus allowing your club to survive. But he won't, as with the rest of your club he's rotten to the core. The ground's worthless, pretty much like your club. Why should other clubs 'move on' from a cheating contrivance that temporarily gave Derby an unfair advantage but which has a real chance of becoming their downfall.

I normally couldn't give two hoots about other clubs but given Derby's two-faced cheating, duplicity and paranoid carping, carping that's even outdone The Scouse in self pity,  I really do hope they go out of business. The quicker the better for all football.

It did strike me when I read that Ashley had withdrawn his bid that the obvious solution would be for Morris to buy the club and pay off the debts now he is a hero with Derby fans again.

As you suggest, he could fund that by selling the stadium at it's alleged market value. As he also seems confident he would defeat Boro's claim that shouldn't be a barrier.

[BTRFTG]

25 minutes ago, chinapig said:

It did strike me when I read that Ashley had withdrawn his bid that the obvious solution would be for Morris to buy the club and pay off the debts now he is a hero with Derby fans again.

As you suggest, he could fund that by selling the stadium at it's alleged market value. As he also seems confident he would defeat Boro's claim that shouldn't be a barrier.

No surprises the Derby fan seeks to deflect from the real issue at hand. Had they bothered to read my post they'd know (as I'm sure they do,) the £81m was an insurance (not market) value and as such would never have sold to another entity at that price. That's why, though transferring ownership, no cash changed hands - another key indicator of when a 'sale' (sic) is anything but. 

It's just more deflection and conflation from duplicitous supporters. Those who revelled in the short term success Morris' cheating brought them. Instead of blaming the conman they should be blaming themselves.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Still on about the stadium? The sale price was proven to be fair and the decision wasn't even appealed by the EFL. Move on.

If it goes back to the club at £20m say though, even accounting for the MSD security, that's quite a gap.

Especially given that the club a) Successfully defended the £81.1m valuation in front of the 1st IDC and b) The company who defended the valuation stated that it considered £81m to be fair, there was some little note on Gellaw Newco 202 1st set of accounts.

Strikes me that if it goes back to the club- and back to the club or back to the new owner in a different group, these are two different things- then that is new evidence to an extent.

Two different scenarios:

1) The Football Group and the Stadium Group are kept separate for P&S purposes. Provided that there is a fair value rent (even a paper one) then all is well. 20 Year lease etc...

2) The Football Group and the Stadium Group are reconsolidated into one 3-4 years into said arrangement. As if the transaction never happened?

Big problem with that and something I'd hope that the EFL would push back on.

3 hours ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

To be honest, I imagine it would have been much lower than that. I think we all know Derby would have lumped as much under 'Covid impairment' as possible.

There's only Lawrence, Bielik and Jozwiak left who were bought for anything above a nominal fee. Based on their contract lengths remaining we'd have been slightly better off in terms of P&S for the two P&S periods you refer to. The period after those though would have been quite a bit worse (3 years to 2024)

Well it was a £30m P&S loss in 2018/19 alone. The amortisation spiked big time in 2019/20 (as seen in IDC 1). I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't have been a breach to either 2021 or 2022. Using your figures in fact under the Derby way, it showed some big amortisation numbers- Ghost of Clough is the poster in q who stated £20.5m.

Presumably his workings would be:

£7m P&S profit in 2018

£30m P&S loss in 2019

The combined losses in 2020 and 2021 sound astronomical in that scenario. £73m/2=£36.5m?? That can't be right. Although I pay a lot of attention to that poster football finance wise but those possible P&S losses are enormous.

Full credit on the workings but how the losses hit such levels is difficult to fathom.

That said, I looked at the Agreed Decision again and assuming the principle of reset, there would have been a high bar to fail P&S to 2021 and yet it was done! £1.96m over, presumably the combined average. Total P&S losses of over £50m in that combined period.

Of course clubs can put what they like in the Covid loss section but whether the EFL accept them in the fullness of time in conjunction with P&S regs is a different matter. Am thinking Stoke and their £30m Covid Impairment especially.

You mention Impairment but this was covered to an extent in the June order, no Impairment except with EFL permission etc.

Some good instructions moving forward actually.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Derby_Ram]

I can't wait for the day this topic vanishes from the first page of this forum

Supporters meeting with Quantuma today and the 31st Jan deadline for resubmission of accounts was discussed. Extension was agreed with the EFL and they should be posted within the next few days - not imminently, just the next few days!

Then we can go back around everything again. In the meantime I'm hoping someone else braves coach one in the next few weeks....

 

[Derby_Ram]

And for those who haven't noticed we have the small matter of a trip to Boro this weekend. Given the rubbish Sky pick I have no idea how this one hasn't been moved from Saturday 3pm for live TV (or on police advice).

[Lanterne Rouge]

7 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:

And for those who haven't noticed we have the small matter of a trip to Boro this weekend. Given the rubbish Sky pick I have no idea how this one hasn't been moved from Saturday 3pm for live TV (or on police advice).

You`re on tomorrow v Hull aren`t you? Big game that.

[Bristol Rob]

15 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:

And for those who haven't noticed we have the small matter of a trip to Boro this weekend. Given the rubbish Sky pick I have no idea how this one hasn't been moved from Saturday 3pm for live TV (or on police advice).

Would imagine the atmosphere will be beyond toxic for that.

Like you say, surprised it hasn't been moved. Sky are probably waiting until the last minute and then they'll move it, because they do everything they can to help fans.

[REDOXO]

4 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Then Morris will have no problem selling it for £81m, morally paying off all the debts he's amassed, including best part of £30m to the taxpayer, thus allowing your club to survive. But he won't, as with the rest of your club he's rotten to the core. The ground's worthless, pretty much like your club. Why should other clubs 'move on' from a cheating contrivance that temporarily gave Derby an unfair advantage but which has a real chance of becoming their downfall.

I normally couldn't give two hoots about other clubs but given Derby's two-faced cheating, duplicity and paranoid carping, carping that's even outdone The Scouse in self pity,  I really do hope they go out of business. The quicker the better for all football.

Never hold back. Say what you think fella

[Mr Popodopolous]

46 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:

I can't wait for the day this topic vanishes from the first page of this forum

Supporters meeting with Quantuma today and the 31st Jan deadline for resubmission of accounts was discussed. Extension was agreed with the EFL and they should be posted within the next few days - not imminently, just the next few days!

Then we can go back around everything again. In the meantime I'm hoping someone else braves coach one in the next few weeks....

 

Thanks for the update. Not sure if I agree with the decision to extend, that's a bad sign- I wouldn't have seen it as right to give an extension but I suppose a lot is going on...

[Clevedon Red]

On 06/02/2022 at 09:52, Monkeh said:

Mike Ashley has pulled out, blaming the administrators 

Not according to sky.

 

[Bristol Rob]

2 hours ago, Clevedon Red said:

Not according to sky.

 

He also has an interest in selling Slazenger t-shirts in a variety of sizes, none of which are consistent or remotely human in their form, but are so cheap, it isn't worth the parking charge to return them.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Dipped back into DCFCFans- don't often read it these days.

Varied posters on there still argue that the amortisation method was correct. That the EFL, the process whoever- were wrong.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I don't understand, what isn't to be understood.

Quote

All @BoroWillhas done is confirmed that DCFC have been punished by the EFL but Gibson doesnt think its enough. His beef is against the EFL, they punished us according to their rules and are continuing to punisn us way above any crime we have committed.

Loss of covid payment

Fine

Transfer embargo.

Wage cap

21 points deduction

Withholding of SKY TV money

It's all covered by the regulations..

Whether the clubs actually have a valid claim is a different debate.

When were Middlesbrough £70m over FFP?? Blurring of lines between Profit and Loss account and debt maybe?

Quote

Will, Mel Morris did not say it was legal he put it in the press Gibson you lead i follow, meaning if you can bend the rules so can Derby.

Bristol City have had 2 share releases to beat ffp, surprise the owner bought them all, wonder if anyone had a chance too purchase any on the open market?  Cheating or not ?

not looked into this one but informed when boro promoted they were £70 million over ffp, and when relegated surprise no points deductions.

The ******* share issue is merely taking the loss limit from lower to upper! Conversion from debt or cash to equity- meaning we can aim at £39m not £15m- it's all acceptable and all clubs with owners with sufficent wealth do this, I would assume.

QPR were £50m at least over FFP when promoted, indeed the EFL wanted to fine them pretty much the full whack- £50-55m I believe was touted early on and the highest I've seen was £58m. I'm sure if Middlesbrough had been anything like that, let alone £70m over when promoted this would have made a big splash! It is in fact possible that they were £2-3m over in 2015/16 when promoted- back in the days of fine or embargo, 1 year rule etc.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

28 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Dipped back into DCFCFans- don't often read it these days.

Varied posters on there still argue that the amortisation method was correct. That the EFL, the process whoever- were wrong.

That one thread that is just the key updates, and isn't just an echo chamber of suffering is useful. Shows you stuff like this that I'd otherwise miss.

Quantuma update that puts pay to some of the claims we see regularly on here from our visitors, such as that a 'deal has been reached with HMRC' - principles have been accepted, but no 'deal' signed.

We [RamsTrust] put the following questions to Derby County administrators at today’s supporters’ groups meeting.

Ramstrust: Can you confirm that you received an ‘asking price bid’ of £28m from the Binnie Brothers to buy the club?

Quantuma: As you know our stance throughout has been that we cannot and will not comment on individual interested parties. That remains the case.

Can you confirm that this would therefore satisfy unsecured creditors at a minimum of 25p in the £1 – thereby avoiding any further points penalty?

Again we cannot comment on individual offers. However, we would envisage any offer that is accepted would meet the minimum 25p in the £ to creditors.

Has an agreement been reached with HMRC for the repayment required and likewise with other creditors?

The position with HMRC remains unchanged and has been covered in multiple previous meetings. They have requested an update which we will provide shortly. However, as we have previously advised, we have shared our draft proposal with HMRC which covered various scenarios. They were happy with the principles in that draft proposal. As previously advised, HMRC will not give formal approval to any proposal before it is in final form. We will provide that proposal once the preferred bidder is chosen and the exit strategy is confirmed.

Can you confirm whether you are in a position to accept this bid as it does not include the stadium, when you have always indicated they would be sold as a package?

We have previously stated that we envisaged the stadium as all interested parties had indicated that was their preference. If an interested party decided that they would in fact rather rent the stadium, and the administrators felt that party represented the best offer for the club, then they would consider it. Our job is to get the best deal for the creditors of the companies in administration.

Can you confirm that the offer would also provide sufficient funding immediately in order to satisfy the EFL that we can complete the season?

All offers include funding through to the end of the season and beyond.

If the proposal by Mel Morris re claims from Middlesborough and Wycombe is accepted, are there any other issues holding up announcing a preferred bidder?

Should the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims be resolved there would be a short period of time before the exit plan is finalised. This is all subject to approval of the parties involved including the EFL.

Will the administrators ask Mel to confirm whether he would indemnify the club against claims if Boro/WW refuse Mel’s offer (or it otherwise appears unworkable)?

Should the proposal be rejected for any reason we would work with the EFL, the other clubs and Mel Morris to try to come to a workable solution.

What is your position on EFL’s proposed meeting with all parties including HMRC?

If the offer to cover legal claims is refused, will you do this? We would be happy to attend meetings with any parties where it would provide constructive progress. It may not be the case that an all-parties meeting would be constructive in the circumstances but it would be considered. Clearly, we were alarmed at confidential discussions being leaked to the press within 2 hours of a prior meeting with various parties despite the importance of confidentiality having been made, at length, at the outset of the meeting.

Is the admins’ understanding that the attempt to broker a £7m out-of-court settlement with bidders on behalf of Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers was made by the EFL?

It would be speculation on our part to answer and we do not want to enter into such speculation about third parties.

Has a cost been agreed for Pride Park Stadium for prospective purchasers?

We have answered the question regarding Pride Park before. The price is confidential but has been reported to us and relayed to interested parties upon request. The price doesn’t change dependent on who puts a bid in but we will not be publicising the price.

Can the administrators confirm that Mel Morris wishes to have no further involvement in Derby County if/ when they exit administration?

There are only two possible roles that he may have going forward. The first would be as landlord in the event that a sale was made that didn’t include the stadium. The second would be in relation to defending the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims. Mel Morris has no involvement with any of the interested parties. Aside from that, Mel Morris has never indicated that he wishes to have any role in the club going forward.

Can the administrators confirm the reason Stephen Pearce is still involved in the club when he was a major reason we are in this position?

As we have previously stated, we are not prepared to discuss individuals employed by the club.

Why were players that Wayne Rooney didn’t want to leave sold after he was apparently assured by them that this wouldn’t happen?

We have always said we did not wish to sell players and that we endeavoured to keep disruption to the footballing side of the club to a minimum. We have spoken to the manager about the reasons for the transfers. There is not a continuous amount of money we can borrow.

More specifically, why was Graham Shinnie sold given that the reported fee was only £30k?

We are not prepared to talk about specific players. However, there is always more to consider to the economics of a transfer than merely the headline fee.

After sales of youth players, apparently behind the manager’s back, could there still be further sales?

We do not currently envisage further sales, but any approaches would be considered in the usual way and discussed with the manager if they merit further consideration.

Doesn’t selling Derby’s players, particularly those who may be worth millions in future years for much lower sums now, reduce the value of the assets that potential purchasers would be buying and therefore risk jeopardising the sale?

There has to be an element of realism about the dire financial status of the club. Given the immediacy of the difficulties the club faces we can’t sit there and think about what a player may be worth in future. Players wouldn’t have been sold if it wasn’t absolutely necessary. All interested parties are realistic about the possibility of relegation and the status of the squad.

If we do prove funding for the remainder of the season, would we then be able to renew players’ contracts to avoid further players leaving for nothing?

Subject to EFL clearance, any such decisions would be made in conjunction with the Manager and the preferred bidder. We are all trying to get to the position where this is possible.

How would the Boro and Wycombe claims be dealt with in a normal company insolvency where EFL rules don’t exist?

Creditors are invited to submit claims for debts owed. The Insolvency Practitioner would then adjudicate on whether the claims should be accepted in full, rejected in part or rejected in full. The creditors can then challenge the Insolvency Practitioner’s decision through the Court if all or part of their claim has been rejected.

Do you believe Mel Morris’s offer will be allowed from a legal standpoint? And do you think the EFL, Boro and Wycombe will allow it?

We don’t have any input. However, it will be for the clubs to decide whether they are willing to accept the offer.

There has been talk in the press about a possible insurance policy against the claims. Is this correct?

Yes, we have looked into it but currently feel the premiums are prohibitive and the legal costs of defending the claims would also have to be funded.

There was a 3 point penalty that was suspended pending the filing of accounts on 31 Jan. Has there been an extension?

We received a short extension and expect to file the accounts within 2 or 3 days. The EFL has been kept fully aware.

What ability does Quantuma have to take claims against other clubs?

The legal advice received by the administrators states the claims against Derby are legally weak and so we have no current plans to bring claims against other clubs on the same basis.

It appears that there is sufficient money for February. Are you happy we will be able to continue to trade as a football club if this isn’t sorted by then?

Funding has been difficult throughout the administration but we remain optimistic about resolving the issues to enable continued trading and exit from administration.

Can you stop players who are into the last six months of their contracts from signing for other clubs?

No.

Does RamsTV make money for the club?

Yes. Also filling the ground, buying advertising and spending in the concourses or on hospitality. Revenue from the Birmingham game was excellent.

You said you were 95% of the club avoiding liquidation. Is that still the case?

Yes, I am confident. Certain matters have changed dramatically but we continue to address them and remain confident.

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

That one thread that is just the key updates, and isn't just an echo chamber of suffering is useful. Shows you stuff like this that I'd otherwise miss.

Quantuma update that puts pay to some of the claims we see regularly on here from our visitors, such as that a 'deal has been reached with HMRC' - principles have been accepted, but no 'deal' signed.

We [RamsTrust] put the following questions to Derby County administrators at today’s supporters’ groups meeting.

Ramstrust: Can you confirm that you received an ‘asking price bid’ of £28m from the Binnie Brothers to buy the club?

Quantuma: As you know our stance throughout has been that we cannot and will not comment on individual interested parties. That remains the case.

Can you confirm that this would therefore satisfy unsecured creditors at a minimum of 25p in the £1 – thereby avoiding any further points penalty?

Again we cannot comment on individual offers. However, we would envisage any offer that is accepted would meet the minimum 25p in the £ to creditors.

Has an agreement been reached with HMRC for the repayment required and likewise with other creditors?

The position with HMRC remains unchanged and has been covered in multiple previous meetings. They have requested an update which we will provide shortly. However, as we have previously advised, we have shared our draft proposal with HMRC which covered various scenarios. They were happy with the principles in that draft proposal. As previously advised, HMRC will not give formal approval to any proposal before it is in final form. We will provide that proposal once the preferred bidder is chosen and the exit strategy is confirmed.

Can you confirm whether you are in a position to accept this bid as it does not include the stadium, when you have always indicated they would be sold as a package?

We have previously stated that we envisaged the stadium as all interested parties had indicated that was their preference. If an interested party decided that they would in fact rather rent the stadium, and the administrators felt that party represented the best offer for the club, then they would consider it. Our job is to get the best deal for the creditors of the companies in administration.

Can you confirm that the offer would also provide sufficient funding immediately in order to satisfy the EFL that we can complete the season?

All offers include funding through to the end of the season and beyond.

If the proposal by Mel Morris re claims from Middlesborough and Wycombe is accepted, are there any other issues holding up announcing a preferred bidder?

Should the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims be resolved there would be a short period of time before the exit plan is finalised. This is all subject to approval of the parties involved including the EFL.

Will the administrators ask Mel to confirm whether he would indemnify the club against claims if Boro/WW refuse Mel’s offer (or it otherwise appears unworkable)?

Should the proposal be rejected for any reason we would work with the EFL, the other clubs and Mel Morris to try to come to a workable solution.

What is your position on EFL’s proposed meeting with all parties including HMRC?

If the offer to cover legal claims is refused, will you do this? We would be happy to attend meetings with any parties where it would provide constructive progress. It may not be the case that an all-parties meeting would be constructive in the circumstances but it would be considered. Clearly, we were alarmed at confidential discussions being leaked to the press within 2 hours of a prior meeting with various parties despite the importance of confidentiality having been made, at length, at the outset of the meeting.

Is the admins’ understanding that the attempt to broker a £7m out-of-court settlement with bidders on behalf of Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers was made by the EFL?

It would be speculation on our part to answer and we do not want to enter into such speculation about third parties.

Has a cost been agreed for Pride Park Stadium for prospective purchasers?

We have answered the question regarding Pride Park before. The price is confidential but has been reported to us and relayed to interested parties upon request. The price doesn’t change dependent on who puts a bid in but we will not be publicising the price.

Can the administrators confirm that Mel Morris wishes to have no further involvement in Derby County if/ when they exit administration?

There are only two possible roles that he may have going forward. The first would be as landlord in the event that a sale was made that didn’t include the stadium. The second would be in relation to defending the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims. Mel Morris has no involvement with any of the interested parties. Aside from that, Mel Morris has never indicated that he wishes to have any role in the club going forward.

Can the administrators confirm the reason Stephen Pearce is still involved in the club when he was a major reason we are in this position?

As we have previously stated, we are not prepared to discuss individuals employed by the club.

Why were players that Wayne Rooney didn’t want to leave sold after he was apparently assured by them that this wouldn’t happen?

We have always said we did not wish to sell players and that we endeavoured to keep disruption to the footballing side of the club to a minimum. We have spoken to the manager about the reasons for the transfers. There is not a continuous amount of money we can borrow.

More specifically, why was Graham Shinnie sold given that the reported fee was only £30k?

We are not prepared to talk about specific players. However, there is always more to consider to the economics of a transfer than merely the headline fee.

After sales of youth players, apparently behind the manager’s back, could there still be further sales?

We do not currently envisage further sales, but any approaches would be considered in the usual way and discussed with the manager if they merit further consideration.

Doesn’t selling Derby’s players, particularly those who may be worth millions in future years for much lower sums now, reduce the value of the assets that potential purchasers would be buying and therefore risk jeopardising the sale?

There has to be an element of realism about the dire financial status of the club. Given the immediacy of the difficulties the club faces we can’t sit there and think about what a player may be worth in future. Players wouldn’t have been sold if it wasn’t absolutely necessary. All interested parties are realistic about the possibility of relegation and the status of the squad.

If we do prove funding for the remainder of the season, would we then be able to renew players’ contracts to avoid further players leaving for nothing?

Subject to EFL clearance, any such decisions would be made in conjunction with the Manager and the preferred bidder. We are all trying to get to the position where this is possible.

How would the Boro and Wycombe claims be dealt with in a normal company insolvency where EFL rules don’t exist?

Creditors are invited to submit claims for debts owed. The Insolvency Practitioner would then adjudicate on whether the claims should be accepted in full, rejected in part or rejected in full. The creditors can then challenge the Insolvency Practitioner’s decision through the Court if all or part of their claim has been rejected.

Do you believe Mel Morris’s offer will be allowed from a legal standpoint? And do you think the EFL, Boro and Wycombe will allow it?

We don’t have any input. However, it will be for the clubs to decide whether they are willing to accept the offer.

There has been talk in the press about a possible insurance policy against the claims. Is this correct?

Yes, we have looked into it but currently feel the premiums are prohibitive and the legal costs of defending the claims would also have to be funded.

There was a 3 point penalty that was suspended pending the filing of accounts on 31 Jan. Has there been an extension?

We received a short extension and expect to file the accounts within 2 or 3 days. The EFL has been kept fully aware.

What ability does Quantuma have to take claims against other clubs?

The legal advice received by the administrators states the claims against Derby are legally weak and so we have no current plans to bring claims against other clubs on the same basis.

It appears that there is sufficient money for February. Are you happy we will be able to continue to trade as a football club if this isn’t sorted by then?

Funding has been difficult throughout the administration but we remain optimistic about resolving the issues to enable continued trading and exit from administration.

Can you stop players who are into the last six months of their contracts from signing for other clubs?

No.

Does RamsTV make money for the club?

Yes. Also filling the ground, buying advertising and spending in the concourses or on hospitality. Revenue from the Birmingham game was excellent.

You said you were 95% of the club avoiding liquidation. Is that still the case?

Yes, I am confident. Certain matters have changed dramatically but we continue to address them and remain confident.

Thanks for this- agreed in principle then with HMRC do we think?

Any big haircut should in turn be reflected in the conditions for the next 2 years any new owners have to work under.

Another one, now one is talking about appealing the -12 and -9!

Quote

There's certainly a case to appeal both the 9-point deuction and also to re-start the appeal against the 12-point Admin deduction. Both were accepted by the Admins in good faith in order to move forward with the sale - the EFL's actions since that point have clearly breached any level of trust and the agreement should therefore be considered invalid.

I've also posted previously that I'm far from sure we were formally charged with breaching P&S rules before accepting the 9-point deduction. It was almost a gentlemans agreement that the re-submitted accounts showed a breach so as we were going to be charged, why not save time and negotiate a suitable punishment? Unless the Admins admitted guilt in accepting the punishment (doubtful) then Gibson and Co possibly are making claims based on our guilt in breaching P&S rules (which technically didn't happen).....

Pretty sure the Agreed Settlement said neither side could reopen it. Try it and just withdraw the Golden Share. Don't transfer it to the new owner or company and let them go pop if they want to act silly.

Some of the logic is hard to fathom.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks for this- agreed in principle then with HMRC do we think?

Seems so, although exactly what "agreed" and "principle" mean we don't know. Could be anything from a very high level agreement to a detailed payment plan that is sat waiting for a signature.

Some other highlights for me were:

There has been talk in the press about a possible insurance policy against the claims. Is this correct?
Yes, we have looked into it but currently feel the premiums are prohibitive and the legal costs of defending the claims would also have to be funded.

I'd raised this, seems it has been explored and discounted. Fair enough.

Why were players that Wayne Rooney didn’t want to leave sold after he was apparently assured by them that this wouldn’t happen?
We have always said we did not wish to sell players and that we endeavoured to keep disruption to the footballing side of the club to a minimum. We have spoken to the manager about the reasons for the transfers. There is not a continuous amount of money we can borrow.

Doesn’t selling Derby’s players, particularly those who may be worth millions in future years for much lower sums now, reduce the value of the assets that potential purchasers would be buying and therefore risk jeopardising the sale?
There has to be an element of realism about the dire financial status of the club. Given the immediacy of the difficulties the club faces we can’t sit there and think about what a player may be worth in future. Players wouldn’t have been sold if it wasn’t absolutely necessary. All interested parties are realistic about the possibility of relegation and the status of the squad.

These two answers together send a pretty clear message to Derby fans (and Rooney) to put up and shut up re player sales.

There was a 3 point penalty that was suspended pending the filing of accounts on 31 Jan. Has there been an extension?
We received a short extension and expect to file the accounts within 2 or 3 days. The EFL has been kept fully aware.

So they did breach the Agreed Decision, but got an extension (presumably two weeks) and will file this week.

You said you were 95% of the club avoiding liquidation. Is that still the case?
Yes, I am confident. Certain matters have changed dramatically but we continue to address them and remain confident.

Bullish as ever.

[Monkeh]

30 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Seems so, although exactly what "agreed" and "principle" mean we don't know. Could be anything from a very high level agreement to a detailed payment plan that is sat waiting for a signature.

Some other highlights for me were:

There has been talk in the press about a possible insurance policy against the claims. Is this correct?
Yes, we have looked into it but currently feel the premiums are prohibitive and the legal costs of defending the claims would also have to be funded.

I'd raised this, seems it has been explored and discounted. Fair enough.

Why were players that Wayne Rooney didn’t want to leave sold after he was apparently assured by them that this wouldn’t happen?
We have always said we did not wish to sell players and that we endeavoured to keep disruption to the footballing side of the club to a minimum. We have spoken to the manager about the reasons for the transfers. There is not a continuous amount of money we can borrow.

Doesn’t selling Derby’s players, particularly those who may be worth millions in future years for much lower sums now, reduce the value of the assets that potential purchasers would be buying and therefore risk jeopardising the sale?
There has to be an element of realism about the dire financial status of the club. Given the immediacy of the difficulties the club faces we can’t sit there and think about what a player may be worth in future. Players wouldn’t have been sold if it wasn’t absolutely necessary. All interested parties are realistic about the possibility of relegation and the status of the squad.

These two answers together send a pretty clear message to Derby fans (and Rooney) to put up and shut up re player sales.

There was a 3 point penalty that was suspended pending the filing of accounts on 31 Jan. Has there been an extension?
We received a short extension and expect to file the accounts within 2 or 3 days. The EFL has been kept fully aware.

So they did breach the Agreed Decision, but got an extension (presumably two weeks) and will file this week.

You said you were 95% of the club avoiding liquidation. Is that still the case?
Yes, I am confident. Certain matters have changed dramatically but we continue to address them and remain confident.

Bullish as ever.

considering the lies and slander these administrators have carried out and continue to, I wouldn't believe anything the produce

[Mr Popodopolous]

Well I've run out of edit time. No Middlesbrough were not £70m over FFP- there was a debt write off of £77m at one point, but this was not done through Profit and Loss so that's good but save for possible Interest payments, not related to FFP strictly speaking. Possibly the write off even predated FFP regs.

Now it did inspire me to look at Middlesbrough. 2014 looks a bit ropey given that the Upper Loss limit at this time was £8m + allowables. £7m in allowables is Middlesbrough's current estimate (Swiss Ramble) but unsure how they complied to 2014 on the old 1 year rule! 2013 we can argue about to some extent but 2014?

Tax on loss on Ordinary activities would be one way but that should be neither here nor there for FFP because then as now, it was Profit or Loss before Tax.

Okay I got that wrong- didn't seem to exist in 2013, 2015 they complied without question, 2016- maybe £2-3m over although nothing definitive- but a big question about 2014 for sure!! Argument that they should have received an Embargo in December 2014, but that would have ended by the summer as they had squeezed their losses down to well within limits in 2014/15.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I don't understand, what isn't to be understood.

It's all covered by the regulations..

Whether the clubs actually have a valid claim is a different debate.

When were Middlesbrough £70m over FFP?? Blurring of lines between Profit and Loss account and debt maybe?

The ******* share issue is merely taking the loss limit from lower to upper! Conversion from debt or cash to equity- meaning we can aim at £39m not £15m- it's all acceptable and all clubs with owners with sufficent wealth do this, I would assume.

QPR were £50m at least over FFP when promoted, indeed the EFL wanted to fine them pretty much the full whack- £50-55m I believe was touted early on and the highest I've seen was £58m. I'm sure if Middlesbrough had been anything like that, let alone £70m over when promoted this would have made a big splash! It is in fact possible that they were £2-3m over in 2015/16 when promoted- back in the days of fine or embargo, 1 year rule etc.

You can’t educate pork. What a bunch of clueless fans they have. Not all of them, but a bunch. 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks for this- agreed in principle then with HMRC do we think?

I read it very differently. I read it as they are happy with the principles of the options, not the actual numbers in the options presented. 

[chinapig]

I'm still puzzled as to how Morris could take the Boro claim on himself when he doesn't own the club. If he can and does is he not admitting personal liability? And would that not extend therefore to all debts owed?

My brain is beginning to hurt.

[Sir Geoff]

5 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm still puzzled as to how Morris could take the Boro claim on himself when he doesn't own the club. If he can and does is he not admitting personal liability? And would that not extend therefore to all debts owed?

My brain is beginning to hurt.

More posturing. He can't as the claims are against the club. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

38 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You can’t educate pork. What a bunch of clueless fans they have. Not all of them, but a bunch. 

I try not to get worked up anymore and try not to throw terms around but some of the views are difficult to understand. Of a chunk of them anyway- I guess the Internet and forums can amplify loud if not necessarily correct voices.

[REDOXO]

16 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm still puzzled as to how Morris could take the Boro claim on himself when he doesn't own the club. If he can and does is he not admitting personal liability? And would that not extend therefore to all debts owed?

My brain is beginning to hurt.

 

9 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

More posturing. He can't as the claims are against the club. 

That is certainly  the way I saw/see it. 
 

The idea that Couhig and Gibson would even entertain a legal battle with Morris rather than Derby is insane 

I liked this comment from Quantuma 

Our job is to get the best deal for the creditors of the companies in administration.

But they really haven’t have they. If I was a creditor of what ever category you like and defined as you wish I would be pretty unhappy. After months of going around and around and a claim that goes back to 2020 they have achieved nothing tangible for anyone 

Yes some will say it will all come together at once, but I can’t see it. 
 

Lord knows how/who will be funding this shit show until next August!?

[chinapig]

13 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

More posturing. He can't as the claims are against the club. 

Well yes, posturing is the very word I used when Morris came out with his ramblings.

The fact that he can't take on the claims seems to have been entirely missed by the fans, the Administrators and Morris himself. Which is what makes my brain hurt.

Though of course Morris' aim may have been to get back in the fans' good books, which seems to have worked. They seem to be so gullible they make gasheads look like realists.

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

 

That is certainly  the way I saw/see it. 
 

The idea that Couhig and Gibson would even entertain a legal battle with Morris rather than Derby is insane 

I liked this comment from Quantuma 

Our job is to get the best deal for the creditors of the companies in administration.

But they really haven’t have they. If I was a creditor of what ever category you like and defined as you wish I would be pretty unhappy. After months of going around and around and a claim that goes back to 2020 they have achieved nothing tangible for anyone 

Yes some will say it will all come together at once, but I can’t see it. 
 

Lord knows how/who will be funding this shit show until next August!?

Agreed broadly speaking.,

I suppose that their argument would be is that if they can somehow bypass the claims, squash them down- challenge the validity not solely of the claims but the right to bring the claims by Middlesbrough and latterly Wycombe, then the creditors would get a better deal.

Not uncommon to challenge the right to bring- UEFA v Man City was one, the latter tried this- Derby and Sheffield Wednesday both claimed that the FFP charges were unlawful in January 2020 and November 2019 respectively.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[REDOXO]

23 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agreed broadly speaking.,

I suppose that their argument would be is that if they can somehow bypass the claims, squash them down- challenge the validity not solely of the claims but the right to bring the claims by Middlesbrough and latterly Wycombe, then the creditors would get a better deal.

Not uncommon to challenge the right to bring- UEFA v Man City was one, the latter tried this- Derby and Sheffield Wednesday both claimed that the FFP charges were unlawful in January 2020 and November 2019 respectively.

Agreed with your first paragraph, as discussed, previously. But to this point they haven’t done anything or got anywhere with Borough or WWFC. Money is flying out the door Quantuma is getting paid, while the debt sits gaining no interest for the suppliers, all knowing the best they will get is 25% of the total. 
 

As for any challenges on any grounds by anyone in any arena that takes time. The fact they can’t get anything done with WW or Borough just shows that the hot air is being pedaled as substance. Quantuma had one plan, try and brow beat Gibson Couhig and the EFL! Not sure that is working out for them  

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Agreed with your first paragraph, as discussed, previously. But to this point they haven’t done anything or got anywhere with Borough or WWFC. Money is flying out the door Quantuma is getting paid, while the debt sits gaining no interest for the suppliers, all knowing the best they will get is 25% of the total. 
 

As for any challenges on any grounds by anyone in any arena that takes time. The fact they can’t get anything done with WW or Borough just shows that the hot air is being pedaled as substance. Quantuma had one plan, try and brow beat Gibson Couhig and the EFL! Not sure that is working out for them  

 

Oh mostly agree for sure. 

Think another part of the issue is that Quantuma- either believe or purport to believe, that the claims of Middlesbrough and Wycombe are worthless so let's bypass them. That won't fly of course and I don't see how Mel Morris can take on the claims either, picking and choosing his debts unless he's via the EFL Arbitration- he however proposes the High Court. Harder to make a claim stick to him than the club IMO.

[REDOXO]

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Oh mostly agree for sure. 

Think another part of the issue is that Quantuma- either believe or purport to believe, that the claims of Middlesbrough and Wycombe are worthless so let's bypass them. That won't fly of course and I don't see how Mel Morris can take on the claims either, picking and choosing his debts unless he's via the EFL Arbitration- he however proposes the High Court. Harder to make a claim stick to him than the club IMO.

The stuff about Morris telling Gibson/Couhig to come after him is just dross. Proper Morris bullshit. 
 

Yes I think you nailed it with puport. If they could vilify Gibson and Couhig via pretty much any means it meant they might go away. So here we are yet again. Todays hot air, the deal could be done in days if NOT for MFC  and WWFC. 
 

Morris ignored Gibson and the line did not change. Quantuma buy time by saying the same stuff and no one goes forward. Unfortunately there is not much more time to buy. 
 

 

[Lanterne Rouge]

Currently three up at home to Hull just after HT

[Clevedon Red]

3 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Currently three up at home to Hull just after HT

I think they’ll stay up.

[GlastonburyRed]

Their Ebosele looks like one hell of a player!

[The Original OTIB]

14 minutes ago, Clevedon Red said:

I think they’ll stay up.

Agree

[eardun]

Derby will certainly be rooting for us tomorrow. 

[eardun]

2 hours ago, GlastonburyRed said:

Their Ebosele looks like one hell of a player!

He did against us earlier in the season (especially in the first half).

[Simon bristol]

Have to say that like him or not, rooney has done an amazing job there, pulling that around was practically impossible.

[Davefevs]

43 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

Have to say that like him or not, rooney has done an amazing job there, pulling that around was practically impossible.

I think he has a decent squad, sorry, had a decent squad until the window.  Not just good youngsters just breaking through, but youngsters like Bird with 100 appearances.

He has done a good job, and playing with a deficit of 21 points has a mental affect.  Having said that, maybe they’ve played with freedom through low expectations?  Bit of siege mentality too?

Will be interesting now that Peterborough and Reading are in their sights whether they start to feel any pressure or not.

Next 4:

Saturday week looks tasty!

[Waconda]

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I think he has a decent squad, sorry, had a decent squad until the window.  Not just good youngsters just breaking through, but youngsters like Bird with 100 appearances.

He has done a good job, and playing with a deficit of 21 points has a mental affect.  Having said that, maybe they’ve played with freedom through low expectations?  Bit of siege mentality too?

Will be interesting now that Peterborough and Reading are in their sights whether they start to feel any pressure or not.

Next 4:

Saturday week looks tasty!

Some great coaching, man management and motivation gone on there for sure.

Even if they do end up going down it's been a fantastic effort from the coaching staff and players.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, VT05763 said:

Some great coaching, man management and motivation gone on there for sure.

Even if they do end up going down it's been a fantastic effort from the coaching staff and players.

Although until recently some dissent from fans over the dull football, e.g. passing it around in their own third for passing’s sake. Back when they played us and lost 1-0, there was a fair bit of moaning that they don’t create much.  They’ve been pretty resilient though.

Our fans weren’t dissimilar in the early part of this season when we were pretty pragmatic, albeit direct.  We looked solid, stayed in games, generally low scoring games - “where are the goals coming from” comments. 

Now we have more open football but are conceding lots.

[Waconda]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Although until recently some dissent from fans over the dull football, e.g. passing it around in their own third for passing’s sake. Back when they played us and lost 1-0, there was a fair bit of moaning that they don’t create much.  They’ve been pretty resilient though.

Our fans weren’t dissimilar in the early part of this season when we were pretty pragmatic, albeit direct.  We looked solid, stayed in games, generally low scoring games - “where are the goals coming from” comments. 

Now we have more open football but are conceding lots.

Yes agreed, they were fairly poor against us.

We looked solid, stayed in games, generally low scoring games - “where are the goals coming from” comments.  and the points !!

As disorganised and open as we are now we have and will gain enough points to stay up, being set up as we were and with the tactics employed before the Blackburn home game we were definitely going to be in trouble - IMO.

It is not great now but there is entertainment and for me as a "holding pattern" for the 3 year plan then it will do.

Just wish the organisation and detail work would improve.