Derby County

[BTRFTG]

49 minutes ago, chinapig said:

More from Rob Dorsett. Note the price is now £30m:

The price of what?

Derby County football club has liabilities around the £71m mark.

In theory this could be reduced by £24m should MSD force the sell of MM's assets  (not sure they can do this without Derby first defaulting on the charge) but mostly that's the ground/training/car park lease and that could have an impact on the club itself should the new landlord have other plans for the assets. Most virtual freeholds have full repairing clauses that friendly landlords (as would have been MM when in charge) don't choose to exercise. What if the new landlord does? 'Hello tenant, you're served notice to reinstate as per the terms of your lease....if you don't you're in default and it's not my problem you can't afford to....'

There's another theoretical reduction of circa £5.5m should the unsecured creditors agree a CVA, but Derby don't have the £1.5m cash to buy that out yet so it would have to be 'discounted' (i.e added as a liability in when accounting for the purchase.)

So paying £30m for the club (name plus 5 contracts) you'd still have acquired £15.5m of debt, have no working capital and be somewhere shy of 20 players to form a squad. Suppose HMRC wrote off £16m of debt you'd still have only 5 contracts, a name and no stadium but that assumes a whole other level of write-off.

Really, who'd offer £30m for that? More likely it's as you often see reported ' I bought X for £1' (technically true but not reporting the tens of millions liability one has also taken possession of)?

[chinapig]

21 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Really, who'd offer £30m for that? More likely it's as you often see reported ' I bought X for £1' (technically true but not reporting the tens of millions liability one has also taken possession of)?

Yes, I suspect you are right. The problem is we are relying on football writers to report on financial matters they don't understand.

The club itself, whose assets comprise 5 players, has little value. So the bulk of the price presumably has to represent the amount required to meet what the creditors have agreed to take.

What we need is a Kieran Maguire to find out what the breakdown actually is.

But a new owner will also have to put in additional money to fund the club for the coming season and beyond, net of ticket income.

Not owning the stadium means that provides no income to the club either. I wonder if their fans still think it was a clever wheeze to "sell" Pride Park?

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

There have been a  lot of pages added since I last ventured on to this thread, could someone give a precis version of where Derby are at currently, deadlines etc please as it seems they are back in the realms of closure to me? @Mr Popodopolouswould you mind Sir?

Thanks.

Hi Ska- will give it a go Sir.

It's such a fast moving story but...

1. Kirchner's deadline was 5pm Friday to definitively get it done- and this was not met!
2. Ashley seems to be strongly interested but may or may not have an amount to avoid -15 and or meet requirements- doesn't want to pay the full fees of Quantuma reportedly.
3. Morgan may- or may not be keen...
4. Referring back to Point 1, their statement was quite strong- think the EFL are fuming,
5. Appleby is still in the running, potentially.
6. Fixtures are out in a fortnight- no deal by then would cast serious doubt on Derby's ability to play next season...
7. ...Although Simon Stone of BBC said the EFL COULD let them start next season in admin- they technically have 18 months to find a buyer so until mid-late March 2023- if they could provide a) Proof of funding and b) A breakeven position for next season- although if an entity breaks even why would it need funding in addition?
8. Dorsett also mentioned two unnabmed bidders.

Clear as mud and every journo/outlet seems to have a slightly different slant but hope it helps.

[BTRFTG]

40 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

However much Derby as a business deserve everything and more, I am not sure that even Derby fans deserve this!

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jun/11/mike-ashley-tells-derby-administrators-he-is-willing-and-ready-to-transact

No wonder The Gruaniad is a busted flush, a begging letter with attached articles.

So Ashley is 'willing to transact' which could mean anything. He also requires 'security', does that imply he wants his bid costs underwritten if unsuccessful? What's he afraid of? I've run some very large procurements in my time and I can tell you for nothing any bidder who requests to have their prospective bid costs underwritten (save if it's a highly bespoke or ultra high risk delivery) gets thrown out the moment they ask as it's indicative of problems ahead.

[BTRFTG]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hi Ska- will give it a go Sir.

It's such a fast moving story but...

1. Kirchner's deadline was 5pm Friday to definitively get it done- and this was not met!
2. Ashley seems to be strongly interested but may or may not have an amount to avoid -15 and or meet requirements- doesn't want to pay the full fees of Quantuma reportedly.
3. Morgan may- or may not be keen...
4. Referring back to Point 1, their statement was quite strong- think the EFL are fuming,
5. Appleby is still in the running, potentially.
6. Fixtures are out in a fortnight- no deal by then would cast serious doubt on Derby's ability to play next season...
7. ...Although Simon Stone of BBC said the EFL COULD let them start next season in admin- they technically have 18 months to find a buyer so until mid-late March 2023- if they could provide a) Proof of funding and b) A breakeven position for next season- although if an entity breaks even why would it need funding in addition?
8. Dorsett also mentioned two unnabmed bidders.

Clear as mud and every journo/outlet seems to have a slightly different slant but hope it helps.

You've missed a key point. Within the next month they'll also have to had assembled and registered a squad of players prior to the season starting. They'll need upward of 20. 

I don't believe the EFL allow the use of weekly or 'pay as you play' contracts these days, given you may play for only a couple of clubs each season. Assuming they find players desperate enough to agree one year deals with nil signing on fees and say only £1k a week, they'd need a £1m or more in the bank to allow that number of contracts to be signed. Note, they can't play kids or youths more than a couple of times before paying the full contract rates, hence the talent they were forced to let go end of last season when his trainee terms were exhausted and they'd have had to have paid him full rate, which they couldn't afford.

Retained lists are already out and there are several hundred players seeking jobs. Would you risk hanging around for Derby's terms in the knowledge they might not exist when there are plenty of guaranteed offers out there? If waiting last minute to save money Derby will be playing with Poundland discounted broken biscuits next year, and who'd want to cough up money for that?

[Mr Popodopolous]

As for the £30m I assume that is without stadium- the stadium too, all-in would probably bump it up to something between £50-55m.

Of course club owning ground would be suspect under the 'Agreed Decision' and change to reporting entities- and yes clubs can still be bound by these potentially. A reminder. 

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-8-investigations-and-disciplinary-proceedings/

[BTRFTG]

Because I'm sad, I can, plus my love of the NFL I eek out my retirement reading up on such matters as the wonderous complexities of the Salary Cap. Which led me to think how any prospective purchaser of Derby might risk price contingent liabilities of players contracts? In the NFL this is comparatively easy, its there in black and white on a freely accessible and daily updated database.

Now I've no idea which 5 players remain contracted to Derby, or what their contracts are valued at, or which terms apply. I've no idea either whether (in NFL terminology) Derby hold 'dead money' liability, that being to players beyond the 5 who no longer play for the club else may even have retired.

In the EFL should Derby fold all contract values outstanding immediately become 'football related debt' and are the first to get paid out. So with my Mike Ashley hat on I'd certainly need to understand what that contingent liability might be before making an offer (this isn't debt as now reported, but could be to a new owner should things go pear shaped.)

Edited June 11, 2022 by BTRFTG

[BTRFTG]

24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As for the £30m I assume that is without stadium- the stadium too, all-in would probably bump it up to something between £50-55m.

Of course club owning ground would be suspect under the 'Agreed Decision' and change to reporting entities- and yes clubs can still be bound by these potentially. A reminder. 

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-8-investigations-and-disciplinary-proceedings/

As I wrote previously it's not just about things like the physical stadium. The EFL requires all sorts of indemnities and insurances from the member club, not only the stadium landlord. Many such indemnities and insurances will be linked or mirrored to similar held by other parties, but it's for the club to have ensured they're registered in time. There's quite a list, all cost and one assumes Q have maintained these so as to have a club to sell, but what if to save monies they've been back ended? Stranger things have happened than running out of time having left oneself with too much work to complete.

[Ska Junkie]

49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hi Ska- will give it a go Sir.

It's such a fast moving story but...

1. Kirchner's deadline was 5pm Friday to definitively get it done- and this was not met!
2. Ashley seems to be strongly interested but may or may not have an amount to avoid -15 and or meet requirements- doesn't want to pay the full fees of Quantuma reportedly.
3. Morgan may- or may not be keen...
4. Referring back to Point 1, their statement was quite strong- think the EFL are fuming,
5. Appleby is still in the running, potentially.
6. Fixtures are out in a fortnight- no deal by then would cast serious doubt on Derby's ability to play next season...
7. ...Although Simon Stone of BBC said the EFL COULD let them start next season in admin- they technically have 18 months to find a buyer so until mid-late March 2023- if they could provide a) Proof of funding and b) A breakeven position for next season- although if an entity breaks even why would it need funding in addition?
8. Dorsett also mentioned two unnabmed bidders.

Clear as mud and every journo/outlet seems to have a slightly different slant but hope it helps.

Thanks Mr P, much appreciated. They're STILL in limbo then essentially?

At some point, something has to give, one way or, unfortunately for DCFC, the other? Starting the season still in limbo is surely asking for issues with the EFL, no matter how accommodating they are isn't it?

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

New statement by Quantuma. 

[cheese]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

New statement by Quantuma. 

This can't be real - doesn't contain the words imminent or shortly.

[Dr Balls]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

No wonder The Gruaniad is a busted flush, a begging letter with attached articles.

So Ashley is 'willing to transact' which could mean anything. He also requires 'security', does that imply he wants his bid costs underwritten if unsuccessful? What's he afraid of? I've run some very large procurements in my time and I can tell you for nothing any bidder who requests to have their prospective bid costs underwritten (save if it's a highly bespoke or ultra high risk delivery) gets thrown out the moment they ask as it's indicative of problems ahead.

Tbf to the Grauniad it’s from the Press Association. I wouldn’t trust Mike Ashley with a pub team but I guess after the sports-washing Saudi buyout of Newcastle he has some money burning a hole in his back pocket. 
 

If true, (big if) it’s a bit like Ken Bayes going to Leeds. Out of the frying pan into the fire!

[PHILINFRANCE]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

No wonder The Gruaniad is a busted flush, a begging letter with attached articles.

Hmmm.

I assume you are referring to The Grauniad Newspepar .

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

New statement by Quantuma. 

Actually, that's very telling and an eye opener to many (though unsurprising) re Ashley. So if Q are to be believed (why else would they put out this statement,) Ashley's initial 'unsubstantiated' offer failed two mandatory EFL requirements, something one imagines the owner of a once Championship club would have understood prior to submitting the offer. Ashley chancing his arm, as is his right? Why am I not surprised? That he now wishes to re-engage, why did he wait so long post initial rebuttal? Why create the smokescreen of non-engagement?

Q's non-committal is exactly what one would expect in their role, that's what they're obliged to do. Lest not forget, they're tasked to sell a barely polished turd.

42 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Hmmm.

I assume you are referring to The Grauniad Newspepar .

If only you'd appended a begging letter to your response Phil......

Edited June 11, 2022 by BTRFTG

[Midred]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

New statement by Quantuma. 

I'm completely useless with legal terminology but when they say "joint" administrators who else are involved? 

[Bristol Rob]

9 minutes ago, Midred said:

I'm completely useless with legal terminology but when they say "joint" administrators who else are involved? 

Cheech & Chong

[BTRFTG]

20 minutes ago, Midred said:

I'm completely useless with legal terminology but when they say "joint" administrators who else are involved? 

The 'administrator' is a single, named individual. I forget their names but I think there were 3 or 4 Quantuma directors named as 'joint administrators'. This is normal in large, complex jobs given should a single, named individual fall ill or get waylaid the others can take over.

Edited June 11, 2022 by BTRFTG

[chinapig]

4 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The 'administrator' is a single, named individual. I forget their names but I think there were 3 or 4 Quantuma directors named as 'joint administrators'. This is normal in large, complex jobs given should a single, named individual fall ill or get waylaid the others can take over.

Plus an administrator must be a qualified insolvency practitioner. Often more than one administrator is appointed to act jointly or separately, so that each administrator can act alone if necessary.

Which means in this case Quantuma is a partnership of individual administrators hence "joint administrators" .

[Barrieowl]

Hopefully the club is saved but they've been allowed a lot of leeway and time to sort it and there has to be a final deadline on it all.

 

 

[Lrrr]

I won’t believe it’s coming to an end for the club until I see a countdown timer on sky sports news 

[Ska Junkie]

1 hour ago, Barrieowl said:

Hopefully the club is saved but they've been allowed a lot of leeway and time to sort it and there has to be a final deadline on it all.

 

 

That I agree with. I've no wish to see any club die but there has to be a point where a deadline is, a very unfortunate deadline.

[East Londoner]

I’ve no particular beef with Derby but surely the time has come for a so called big club to be allowed to die as a warning to every other club including ours that lives beyond its means 

In the last twenty years we’ve had this with Leeds and Portsmouth and Bolton and if Derby survive it’s only a matter of time before some other club gets into this sort of mess 

The fact they’re a so called big club means they’ve already been given a lot more leeway than Bury did for example and the time has come to set a hard deadline with an explicit warning that if it’s missed they be expelled from the league 

Having a bigger club die would hopefully focus some minds on reform which probably wouldn’t happen otherwise and deal with the financial gulf between the premier league and the championship whilst levelling the playing field in the championship. None of this is likely to happen when clubs are allowed to soldier on having paid only a fraction of their debts 

[Coombsy]

Mel chose this bunch of Administrators and he's been pulling the strings. It's been obvious that he did'nt want Mike Ashley and now it's all balls up. The transfer window is now open, rumours are the current contracted players have'nt been paid for June. Agents for the ones out of contract will be seeking other clubs for them. Other rumour I've heard that so far these clowns have taken £8m in wages from the Rams, no wonder why they were pushing sales through on players to line their pockets. They won't get another job with any other stricken club after their balls up at Derby 

 

taken from 

Derby site

[chinapig]

26 minutes ago, Coombsy said:

Mel chose this bunch of Administrators and he's been pulling the strings. It's been obvious that he did'nt want Mike Ashley and now it's all balls up. The transfer window is now open, rumours are the current contracted players have'nt been paid for June. Agents for the ones out of contract will be seeking other clubs for them. Other rumour I've heard that so far these clowns have taken £8m in wages from the Rams, no wonder why they were pushing sales through on players to line their pockets. They won't get another job with any other stricken club after their balls up at Derby 

 

taken from 

Derby site

They are right about Morris but the players have been paid for May (though it isn't clear by whom) and June wages are not due until the end of the month.

Quantuma say they have not been paid anything yet and it is perfectly possible they don't get paid until the job is done. Others on here will know if that's normal practice.

But I suspect they only got this job because better practitioners wouldn't do it due to Morris not putting the stadium company into administration. A poisoned chalice.

[BTRFTG]

22 minutes ago, chinapig said:

They are right about Morris but the players have been paid for May (though it isn't clear by whom) and June wages are not due until the end of the month.

Quantuma say they have not been paid anything yet and it is perfectly possible they don't get paid until the job is done. Others on here will know if that's normal practice.

But I suspect they only got this job because better practitioners wouldn't do it due to Morris not putting the stadium company into administration. A poisoned chalice.

They'll get paid at the end, assuming that is there's anything with which to pay them, hence why they're top of the payment pile.

I'm not sure how or why you'd put the stadium company into administration? At best it's an asset holding with rents due from the football club and marginal ougoings, else it's just a company holding the asset, hence cash neutral. Provided the value of the related charge doesn't exceed the asset value (it's £81m, after all ) the company is in no danger of failing to meet its obligations.

PoF continues to make very disparaging, though veiled,  comments about Q  that may be valid save without making explicit accusation as to what they're doing wrong that's an unfair position to adopt should the be unable to answer back. There may be good reason for Q maintaining silence, could even be they've signed binding agreements to that effect. Fact is none of us know. Interesting to note Q's threat to take action against any attempting to disparage their reputation.

The silence, too, works in Ashley's favour. He's looking to buy the name, EFL share and assets only whilst not absorbing any existing liabilities. Best way for that to happen is to push Derby to the brink such he's their only saviour, then hoping that political pressure, which he knows exists at the highest level of Government, will trump normal business practice and logic and get him what he wants.

[CyderInACan]

45 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Best way for that to happen is to push Derby to the brink such he's their only saviour, then hoping that political pressure, which he knows exists at the highest level of Government, will trump normal business practice and logic and get him what he wants.

It shouldn’t though, should it. 

[The Batman]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

 

Quantuma say they have not been paid anything yet and it is perfectly possible they don't get paid until the job is done. Others on here will know if that's normal practice.

 

It is. I don't work for an insolvency practitioners but I work in corporate restructuring in the insurance world. We receive payment for our services upon closure of the case. Ie sale completions for properties under lpa receiverships or sale of assets / purchasing of the company that is in administration. 

The longer the case is with us, the more money it costs and it just builds and builds. But we act as a secured creditor so we will get paid upon the cancellation. The IP's will be the same. 

[BTRFTG]

21 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

It shouldn’t though, should it. 

Exactly! It should have nothing to do with politics. Derby (football clubs) should be treated as any other business and if they need and deserve to go bust they should.

[Leveller]

6 hours ago, East Londoner said:

I’ve no particular beef with Derby but surely the time has come for a so called big club to be allowed to die as a warning to every other club including ours that lives beyond its means 

In the last twenty years we’ve had this with Leeds and Portsmouth and Bolton and if Derby survive it’s only a matter of time before some other club gets into this sort of mess 

The fact they’re a so called big club means they’ve already been given a lot more leeway than Bury did for example and the time has come to set a hard deadline with an explicit warning that if it’s missed they be expelled from the league 

Having a bigger club die would hopefully focus some minds on reform which probably wouldn’t happen otherwise and deal with the financial gulf between the premier league and the championship whilst levelling the playing field in the championship. None of this is likely to happen when clubs are allowed to soldier on having paid only a fraction of their debts 

I suspect they’ve been given time because there was a real prospect of a buyer - which there probably wasn’t with the likes of Bury. A big name club is simply a more saleable asset with more prospect of becoming a going concern.

[View from the Dolman]

Another EFL statement... 

 

[Buster Footman's T shirt]

2 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Another EFL statement... 

 

Sounds like this could actually be the beginning of the endgame. Cogs starting to turn towards expulsion sooner rather than later? Seems a lot more bullish from the EFL than previously.  

[Monkeh]

4 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Another EFL statement... 

 

Putting their foot down and the first step in throwing them out of the league has been taken,

Reads as if any patients the efl had has now gone 

[REDOXO]

21 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Putting their foot down and the first step in throwing them out of the league has been taken,

Reads as if any patients the efl had has now gone 

Derby are the patient and they are on life support. 

[Monkeh]

2 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Derby are the patient and they are on life support. 

Time to turn it off and unplug them 

[East Londoner]

1 hour ago, Leveller said:

I suspect they’ve been given time because there was a real prospect of a buyer - which there probably wasn’t with the likes of Bury. A big name club is simply a more saleable asset with more prospect of becoming a going concern.

Wider point I’m making though is nothing is going to change until one of the so called bigger clubs goes pop. Otherwise it’ll be another name going into administration and on life support 

It’s easy for the bigger clubs to ignore what happened to Bury but not so easy if it’s Derby 

Edited June 12, 2022 by East Londoner

[Mr Popodopolous]

I'm surprised Quantuma (Saturday statement) and the EFL (today) appear to work weekends! 

That statement is fairly strong and one of the stronger ones yet.  I wonder if there is a hard deadline attached...in theory Derby could start 2022/23 in administration if as I said the other day they had a cash breakeven budget and also if required, proof of to see out the season...or in this case as a club can only be in administration for 18 months, mid-late March 2023 going by that could be a final deadline.

The reference to the interests of the EFL and integrity of the competition for the first time- it has been an elephant in the room for a while now but it has woken up, trumpeted!

And

From the statement...bit about negotiating directly in relation to the transfer of the Golden Share also feels fairly unprecedented!

Edited June 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

A quick look at their forum reveals a predictable "EFL are picking on us" response. Including a demand for the EFL to be disbanded and replaced by a more competent body.

So, for the benefit of any Derby fans visiting, the EFL is not some separate body. Here's a clue: EFL stands for English Football League i.e. the 72 clubs, of which you are a member, for the time being at least. So it probably won't help Derby to disband the competition.

 

[BTRFTG]

Favours given Derby simply send the message that if one is to gamble and go bust, do it large.

If the EFL bend over backwards to allow clubs to retain their membership after entering administration, dumping their debt on the non-footballing suckers who've supported them, only to emerge with a clean slate , why go under for £1m? Why not make it £10m or £50m or £100m if the ultimate outcome is the same? Makes a whole mockery of FFP & P&S.

The EFL MUST continue to punish Derby for every advantage they might gain against their peers should they survive this. Say HMRC let Derby off £20m of debt; the EFL should have a rolling programme to deduct from their distributions to Derby  an equivalent amount and distribute that amongst other members. 

[BTRFTG]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm surprised Quantuma (Saturday statement) and the EFL (today) appear to work weekends! 

That statement is fairly strong and one of the stronger ones yet.  I wonder if there is a hard deadline attached...in theory Derby could start 2022/23 in administration if as I said the other day they had a cash breakeven budget and also if required, proof of to see out the season...or in this case as a club can only be in administration for 18 months, mid-late March 2023 going by that could be a final deadline.

If the administrators are not allowed to sign players whilst the club remains in administration how might Derby start the season with but 5 players under contract?

[BTRFTG]

2 minutes ago, chinapig said:

A quick look at their forum reveals a predictable "EFL are picking on us" response. Including a demand for the EFL to be disbanded and replaced by a more competent body.

So, for the benefit of any Derby fans visiting, the EFL is not some separate body. Here's a clue: EFL stands for English Football League i.e. the 72 clubs, of which you are a member, for the time being at least. So it probably won't help Derby to disband the competition.

 

Technically, Derby are no longer a member post entering administration.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

If the administrators are not allowed to sign players whilst the club remains in administration how might Derby start the season with but 5 players under contract?

This is the bit I keep forgetting but yes- I suppose in the event that they have some scholars and youth players they can cobble something together- depends who is still in contract I guess.

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Technically, Derby are no longer a member post entering administration.

Is that right? Isn't it that they are a Member, but they are on a suspended Notice to sell their share (the Notice referred to in the latest EFL statement). So long as they hold a share, they are a Member. Why do you say they are no longer a Member as of entry into Admin? They kind of have to remain a Member so that the EFL's Articles and Regs can remain enforceable against them.

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Including a demand for the EFL to be disbanded and replaced by a more competent body.

Sunday boozing isn't always wise.

[BTRFTG]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Is that right? Isn't it that they are a Member, but they are on a suspended Notice to sell their share (the Notice referred to in the latest EFL statement). So long as they hold a share, they are a Member. Why do you say they are no longer a Member as of entry into Admin? They kind of have to remain a Member so that the EFL's Articles and Regs can remain enforceable against them.

Sunday boozing isn't always wise.

My understanding is once served notice they are technically expelled from the EFL and their share suspended (they lose rights over voting et al,) but may continue operating until as confirmation of their expulsion is deferred until voted by the board, this gives them a chance to put things right. Expulsion does have a number of knock on impacts on other areas.

[chinapig]

41 minutes ago, chinapig said:

A quick look at their forum reveals a predictable "EFL are picking on us" response. Including a demand for the EFL to be disbanded and replaced by a more competent body.

So, for the benefit of any Derby fans visiting, the EFL is not some separate body. Here's a clue: EFL stands for English Football League i.e. the 72 clubs, of which you are a member, for the time being at least. So it probably won't help Derby to disband the competition.

 

I do one poster a disservice though:

I simply don't get the axe to grind stuff with the EFL so I'm not on the same page; probably gives me company only with a very small minority of Derby fans but there we have it. The problems are and were Mel Morris, and since he left, the administrators, admins that haven't been up to much; opinion formulated there on the basis that results speak louder than words and the results are and remain poor. Creating bogeymen of the EFL, I can understand the emotion behind it, but I think it is precisely that, emotion. Think their Statement today is wholly necessary, putting feet to the fire is vital at some point.

Well yes, quite.

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

My understanding is once served notice they are technically expelled from the EFL and their share suspended (they lose rights over voting et al,) but may continue operating until as confirmation of their expulsion is deferred until voted by the board, this gives them a chance to put things right. Expulsion does have a number of knock on impacts on other areas.

Not quite my reading of it.

A club is Member of the EFL by virtue of being a shareholder in The Football League Limited. Thay membership is governed primarily by the Articles of Association of the Football League Limited.

Article 4.5 gives the Board of the EFL power to send the Notice telling a Member to sell their share for 5p. That power is enabled when one of the events in Article 4.7 happens. In Derby's case its 4.7.4 - an Insolvency Event.

So yes, on the face of it the sequence of events goes as you say.

However, Article 4.8 gives the Board the additional power to suspend that Notice for as long as they like, and to impose conditions relating to that suspension, and that's what they've done to Derby.

I can't see anything in the Articles that automatically suspends voting rights when a Member is served a Notice under Article 4.5, although I guess that could be one of the special conditions. Not heard that it is in Derby's case though.

The Regulations are the other governing doc. Regulations 4.3 grants a general power to expel a club, but again I don't think that's happened and it says nothing about being automatic upon entering admin. The Regs are long, and I've not read them in detail. There are a ton of requirements that might lead to penalties, but I don't think there's anything that overrides those provisions of the Articles, and so there's nothing to "expel" Derby from the league automatically. 

Now, all of that doesn't mean they can't be kicked out bloody sharpish should the Board wish. There's certainly a sword of Damocles hanging over them right now. But, for now, they remain a Member.

[chinapig]

Some new points from Sky here:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11696/12632554/derby-county-takeover-several-businesspeople-ready-to-step-in-to-prevent-liquidation

This bit is surprising. Back-up funding from whom?

Sky Sports News has been told that while the priority is to complete a club takeover long before the fixtures are released, there is the potential for "back-up" funding to be made available for Derby to assemble a squad and fulfil their fixtures should that process be delayed.

[Mr Popodopolous]

27 minutes ago, chinapig said:

This bit is surprising. Back-up funding from whom?

Sky Sports News has been told that while the priority is to complete a club takeover long before the fixtures are released, there is the potential for "back-up" funding to be made available for Derby to assemble a squad and fulfil their fixtures should that process be delayed.

My guess would be MSD. Although they should have to fall back on youth and scholars before being allowed to make any signings whatsoever while in admin IMO. If they have say 23 of first team, youth and scholars then no new signings required!

This Derby fan would like special treatment, of course.

Quote

No, but they could vary their rules to make it easier for find a buyer.

They could renew the golden share with football creditors not getting 100%. They could allow a takeover at less than 25% for the unsecured creditors without a points deduction. They could allow just a 1 year stadium deal. They could impose a business plan which allowed the club to be competitive. They remove the embargo so we can at least renew contracts to keep some value in the club

But they won't. 

Edited June 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

My guess would be MSD. Although they should have to fall back on youth and scholars before being allowed to make any signings whatsoever while in admin IMO.

This Derby fan would like special treatment, of course.

 

If only the poster had written to the other 71 clubs before the EFL AGM. I'm sure they would have happily made wholesale changes to the rules they have abided by to give Derby an advantage from not abiding by them. Who could possibly object?

[REDOXO]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

My guess would be MSD. Although they should have to fall back on youth and scholars before being allowed to make any signings whatsoever while in admin IMO. If they have say 23 of them then no new signings required!

This Derby fan would like special treatment, of course.

 

There are some delusional people that go on that forum. 
 

The 71 other clubs are supposed to turn a blind eye to being cheated by an owner who has dropped the supporters in the worst possible mess and turn a blind eye to the rules that everyone else has to abide by! 
 

Founder members don’t you know!

The members bit we are aware of!!

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

Not quite my reading of it.

A club is Member of the EFL by virtue of being a shareholder in The Football League Limited. Thay membership is governed primarily by the Articles of Association of the Football League Limited.

Article 4.5 gives the Board of the EFL power to send the Notice telling a Member to sell their share for 5p. That power is enabled when one of the events in Article 4.7 happens. In Derby's case its 4.7.4 - an Insolvency Event.

So yes, on the face of it the sequence of events goes as you say.

However, Article 4.8 gives the Board the additional power to suspend that Notice for as long as they like, and to impose conditions relating to that suspension, and that's what they've done to Derby.

I can't see anything in the Articles that automatically suspends voting rights when a Member is served a Notice under Article 4.5, although I guess that could be one of the special conditions. Not heard that it is in Derby's case though.

The Regulations are the other governing doc. Regulations 4.3 grants a general power to expel a club, but again I don't think that's happened and it says nothing about being automatic upon entering admin. The Regs are long, and I've not read them in detail. There are a ton of requirements that might lead to penalties, but I don't think there's anything that overrides those provisions of the Articles, and so there's nothing to "expel" Derby from the league automatically. 

Now, all of that doesn't mean they can't be kicked out bloody sharpish should the Board wish. There's certainly a sword of Damocles hanging over them right now. But, for now, they remain a Member.

I can't find it at present but think the EFL issued a few years back one of their enhanced guidance notes (they've many,) which filled in the gaps left by badly worded policy re administration events.

I seem to recall for administration this entailed an amended procedure and timeline from the stated expulsion process designed for malpractice (the general regs assumed clubs heading for insolvency would do the decent thing and resign.) I think in administration an additional prior notice to the formal expulsion notice is issued but it has a similar effect, namely that it isn't a suspension of the threat to remove membership, rather membership is revoked immediately but not ratified within a given timeframe (as would be the case in explusion.) The change sounded moot but there were technical reasons for it working that way round and they seemed to make sense at the time. For example, club officials have no authority to act in any capacity, that having been passed to the administrators, such they couldn't stand for EFL election or continue to sit on EFL voting committees whilst administration remained active. It eliminated any risk that clubs might seek to use marginal voting influence to their own advantage, not the good of the game. Administrators couldn't stand or vote on clubs behalf as, de facto, they're independent and not EFL members, a sort of Catch 22. I think there was also something about clubs/administrators not having automatic rights to payment schedules, that these moved to the discretion of the EFL. Monies would still be payable through the administration period(and were where administrators were playing ball,) though the EFL could step in and manage themselves such they would be able to ensure the football side hierarchy of payment never lost out. Sounded wholly contrary to common law but that's football and association membership for you.

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If they have say 23 of first team, youth and scholars then no new signings required!

As per my comment yesterday re Dylan Williams, League rules quickly prevent clubs fielding first teams comprised of very young kids. Trainees and scholars may only play a handful of first team games before they MUST be issued full adult contracts. There are also limits on the number of trainees and scholars that may appear in the first team at the same time (it isn't many). Without offering adult contracts you'd need hundred of kids to get through a season.

[downendcity]

31 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

As per my comment yesterday re Dylan Williams, League rules quickly prevent clubs fielding first teams comprised of very young kids. Trainees and scholars may only play a handful of first team games before they MUST be issued full adult contracts. There are also limits on the number of trainees and scholars that may appear in the first team at the same time (it isn't many). Without offering adult contracts you'd need hundred of kids to get through a season.

Weren't Bolton allowed to postpone games at the start of the season over concerns for player welfare had they been forced to field a team of young players against seasoned senior pros?

[Lanterne Rouge]

3 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Weren't Bolton allowed to postpone games at the start of the season over concerns for player welfare had they been forced to field a team of young players against seasoned senior pros?

It was more about the rules surrounding youth players and the length of time between games I think. I believe it`s longer than the 48hrs that it is for senior pros.

[Monkeh]

Back up funding? Isn't third party investment against the rules 

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Favours given Derby simply send the message that if one is to gamble and go bust, do it large.

If the EFL bend over backwards to allow clubs to retain their membership after entering administration, dumping their debt on the non-footballing suckers who've supported them, only to emerge with a clean slate , why go under for £1m? Why not make it £10m or £50m or £100m if the ultimate outcome is the same? Makes a whole mockery of FFP & P&S.

The EFL MUST continue to punish Derby for every advantage they might gain against their peers should they survive this. Say HMRC let Derby off £20m of debt; the EFL should have a rolling programme to deduct from their distributions to Derby  an equivalent amount and distribute that amongst other members. 

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

It was more about the rules surrounding youth players and the length of time between games I think. I believe it`s longer than the 48hrs that it is for senior pros.

I think that's right, it was the recovery gap between games. Odd when one considers I could play several games a day at that age but that reduced to weekly within a few years....post match alcohol recovery being the issue....

[CyderInACan]

 

[Midred]

14 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

I think that's right, it was the recovery gap between games. Odd when one considers I could play several games a day at that age but that reduced to weekly within a few years....post match alcohol recovery being the issue....

And half time fags?

[Davefevs]

As per a post the other day, Nixon’s tweets have become more and more obvious that he’s pushing someone else’s agenda.

[exAtyeoMax]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

As per a post the other day, Nixon’s tweets have become more and more obvious that he’s pushing someone else’s agenda.

what do you mean?

[chinapig]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

As per a post the other day, Nixon’s tweets have become more and more obvious that he’s pushing someone else’s agenda.

He appears to be Kirchner's mouthpiece. Or at least he is very much taking his side. He's going to have egg on his face if Kirchner doesn't deliver the money allegedly held up in a European clearing bank by money laundering checks pdq.

[Jerseybean]

Mike Ashley mentioned here again. The saga goes on and on…..https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-takeover-mike-ashley-7198297

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Some funny posts on their forum and Twitter...how whiny and entitled are a significant albeit vocal minority of their fanbase btw!?

Exhibit A.

As for the forum- one of them suggests perhaps that the proceeds for the Chelsea sale- due for charity , well they wouldn't mind a slice of that.

In fairness and for balance, a poster on there did have the temerity to point out that the EFL is about the 72 not just one and Derby5hire also pointed out why the money issue might attract interest.

Plus from the forum.

*best Basil Fawlty impression- Basil Fawlty Rick Parry on Derby!

Quote

Oh, I see, it's all my fault, is it? Oh, of course, there I was, thinking it was the fault of Mel Morris for stopping paying the bills, trying to evade FFP and not publishing accounts, or Quantuma's fault because they spent some valuable time and money on pointless points appeals pissing the executive and other 71 clubs off in the process, or Smith Cooper's fault for signing off on an ultimately non permitted accounting policy and all the time it was MY fault. Oh, it's so obvious now."

Taken from The Builders when he lost his door.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Some funny posts on their forum and Twitter...how whiny and entitled are a significant albeit vocal minority of their fanbase btw!?

Exhibit A.

As for the forum- one of them suggests perhaps that the proceeds for the Chelsea sale- due for charity , well they wouldn't mind a slice of that.

In fairness and for balance, a poster on there did have the temerity to point out that the EFL is about the 72 not just one and Derby5hire also pointed out why the money issue might attract interest.

 

I see by the way that the Rams Trust has welcomed the EFL intervention, which presumably makes them traitors to the cause.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, chinapig said:

I see by the way that the Rams Trust has welcomed the EFL intervention, which presumably makes them traitors to the cause.

Should they be added to ze List! Sure it shouldn't have escaped the attention of the Forest forum.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Another one that caught the eye.

Will leave for others to comment, judge.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

14 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I can't find it at present but think the EFL issued a few years back one of their enhanced guidance notes (they've many,) which filled in the gaps left by badly worded policy re administration events.

I seem to recall for administration this entailed an amended procedure and timeline from the stated expulsion process designed for malpractice (the general regs assumed clubs heading for insolvency would do the decent thing and resign.) I think in administration an additional prior notice to the formal expulsion notice is issued but it has a similar effect, namely that it isn't a suspension of the threat to remove membership, rather membership is revoked immediately but not ratified within a given timeframe (as would be the case in explusion.) The change sounded moot but there were technical reasons for it working that way round and they seemed to make sense at the time. For example, club officials have no authority to act in any capacity, that having been passed to the administrators, such they couldn't stand for EFL election or continue to sit on EFL voting committees whilst administration remained active. It eliminated any risk that clubs might seek to use marginal voting influence to their own advantage, not the good of the game. Administrators couldn't stand or vote on clubs behalf as, de facto, they're independent and not EFL members, a sort of Catch 22. I think there was also something about clubs/administrators not having automatic rights to payment schedules, that these moved to the discretion of the EFL. Monies would still be payable through the administration period(and were where administrators were playing ball,) though the EFL could step in and manage themselves such they would be able to ensure the football side hierarchy of payment never lost out. Sounded wholly contrary to common law but that's football and association membership for you.

Would be good if you could find that.

You're right I think that the Joint Admins don't have quite the same status as a director. I think if you read the Regs then technically a Joint Admin should have to satisfy the Owners and Directors test. They act as though they are directors, and so are caught by the test. Yet we never hear anything to suggest they have been asked to satisfy the test (although I doubt they would fail), and so it is implied that the EFL are satisfied somehow that they actually aren't quite equivalent to a director. Yet, as you point out, the directors no longer have authority to act as such - because some of their powers are handed over to the Joint Admins under normal insolvency rules. It is an odd situation...but does it create something more than the Notice and related suspension process that I outlined in my earlier post?

I think you/the EFL/everyone needs to be clear that membership of the EFL is only conferred by the holding of a share in The Football League Limited. Owning a share is binary, you either own it or you don't. It doesn't really allow for ""..membership [being] revoked immediately but not ratified within a given timeframe". You can suspend or change certain rights and powers granted by that share, but ultimately we'd all know if Debry had been forced to sell their share in the The Football League Limited.

[BTRFTG]

32 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Would be good if you could find that.

You're right I think that the Joint Admins don't have quite the same status as a director. I think if you read the Regs then technically a Joint Admin should have to satisfy the Owners and Directors test. They act as though they are directors, and so are caught by the test. Yet we never hear anything to suggest they have been asked to satisfy the test (although I doubt they would fail), and so it is implied that the EFL are satisfied somehow that they actually aren't quite equivalent to a director. Yet, as you point out, the directors no longer have authority to act as such - because some of their powers are handed over to the Joint Admins under normal insolvency rules. It is an odd situation...but does it create something more than the Notice and related suspension process that I outlined in my earlier post?

I think you/the EFL/everyone needs to be clear that membership of the EFL is only conferred by the holding of a share in The Football League Limited. Owning a share is binary, you either own it or you don't. It doesn't really allow for ""..membership [being] revoked immediately but not ratified within a given timeframe". You can suspend or change certain rights and powers granted by that share, but ultimately we'd all know if Debry had been forced to sell their share in the The Football League Limited.

Understand where you are coming from but I believe the EFL view membership as somewhat more than simply holding a (largely symbolic) share. Recall one can't gift or pass the share to anyone (that requires EFL approval,) when exiting the EFL either way one has to cede the share (no choice in the matter,) and the share may be removed via the expulsion process. Ultimately Derby may have to be expelled using that process but I believe buried amongst the nebulous discretionary clauses the EFL love, that once in administration one's membership (though not technically share at that point,) is removed.

From yesterday's statement I'm not sure the EFL might think Q 'fit and proper' but that's moot given, if I remember correctly, Q will have no power or influence within the EFL membership. Consider also the extraordinary powers the EFL exerted yesterday, setting mandatory constraints on how the administrators MUST act. Wouldn't happen elsewhere in business but I think they are able to do so under the membership powers (i.e. if you don't like it you don't have to be a member of this group.)

[Davefevs]

Nixon:

 

[Hxj]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Nixon

Increasingly desperate ramblings in favour of his master.