Derby County

[Monkeh]

1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

So how come Kirchner passed the EFL's owners and directors test? And what sort of proof of funding did he provide them with? What a shambles.

Oh well, never mind. 

He didn't, as he couldn't  provide proof of funds hence the deal collapsing

Edited June 14, 2022 by Monkeh

[Merrick's Marvels]

4 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

He didn't, as he couldn't  provide proof of funds hence the deal collapsing

BBC article posted yesterday says he did. Didn't the deal collapse because of money laundering checks at bank transfer stage?? Who knows, I'm just sat here laughing.  

[1960maaan]

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

If you think that’s bad Lawrence Bassini is supposedly taking over Birmingham…

The whole thing is a total shambles, the direct consequence of letting Wild West capitalism loose on football.

We’re never putting the genie back in the bottle now, but how we got to this place is shameful.

They have things in place to stop dodgy people working in football, don't they.

Prior to taking over at Watford Bassini had been made bankrupt in 2007 following the failure of his business 

Bassini's tenure at Watford was marked by allegations of financial impropriety

In November 2012 it was announced the £1.5 million Bassini owed to Watford Football Club for 'cash advances' was unlikely to be repaid

n March 2013 an independent disciplinary commission found Bassini guilty of misconduct and dishonesty over financial dealings on behalf of Watford and banned him from being involved in a position of authority with any Football League club for three years.

In July 2013 Bassini added to his list of business failures when the High Court ordered his company Watford Leisure Limited be placed in liquidation.

In June 2014 Bassini was made bankrupt for the second time. The bankruptcy order was made after Bassini failed to pay the sum of £37,500. During the hearing Bassini claimed not to own any property despite receiving over £1.5 million in cash advances from Watford during his tenure

Bassini seems a thoroughly decent chap, don't he. I can see why the EFL have no problems.

 

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

So how come Kirchner passed the EFL's owners and directors test? And what sort of proof of funding did he provide them with? What a shambles.

Oh well, never mind. 

Because the EFL Owners and Directors test has nothing to do with funding. The test is contained in Appendix 3 of the EFL Regulations and begins with the following phrase:

The intention behind this Appendix 3 is to protect the image and integrity of The League and its competitions, the well-being of the Clubs, and the interests of all of the stakeholders in those Clubs, by preventing anyone who is subject to a 'Disqualifying Condition' being involved in or influencing the management or administration of a Club.

So, you fail or pass the test depending on whether or not you are subject to a 'Disqualifying Condition'. 

In summary a 'Disqualifying Condition' is one of the following:

• owning, managing, or otherwise controlling more than one EFL or Premier League club;
• being subject to a 'Disciplinary Matter' including, but not limited to;
  • being banned from involvement in the administration of sport;
  • being barred from a professional body (including, by way of example and without limitation, The Law Society, Bar Council or the Institute of Chartered Accountants);
  • if you were an official at a Club when it was kicked out of the League; or
  • providing false, misleading or inaccurate information.
• being subject to a 'Criminal Matter' including, but not limited to having an Unspent Conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction in England and Wales in respect of any offence involving;
  • corruption;
  • perverting the course of justice;
  • a serious breach of any requirement under the Companies Acts (1985 and 2006);
  • pirating any UK broadcast - interesting note that it was the equivalent rule in the equivalent PL test that caused Newcastle's new owners a spot of trouble in their attempted takeover;
  • ticket touting; and
  • sex offences.
• any disqualifications under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or similar laws in other countries; and
• Insolvency matters including, but not limited to being in charge of two football clubs that have suffered unconnected insolvency events or one football club that has been subject to or suffered two unconnected insolvency event.

That's it. In brief, that's the test that everyone bangs on about. Basically if you've never been involved in football before, and aren't a convicted criminal or disqualified professional or director, you'll more than likely pass. So when a journalist or someone says a person has "passed the O&D test, all they mean is that they've passed the above criteria.

Yes, this is why some of us want an independent regulator to come in and toughen the O&D test up by including an integrity test and other elements.

Funding is dealt with separately, and in Derby's case even more separately as they are in admin already.

[Merrick's Marvels]

41 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Because the EFL Owners and Directors test has nothing to do with funding.

Thanks.

When Lansdown's ready to sell, I'll be sure to let him know I'm interested.

The fact I don't have a brass farthing to my name might put him off but at least the EFL will consider me a fit and proper prospective owner. God help us. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels

[Monkeh]

16 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Thanks.

When Lansdown's ready to sell, I'll be sure to let him know I'm interested.

The fact I don't have a brass farthing to my name might put him off but at least the EFL will consider me a fit and proper prospective owner. God help us. 

It's not the efl's business to manage its members finances or the finances of people who currently have nothing to do with football,

[Merrick's Marvels]

8 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

It's not the efl's business to manage its members finances or the finances of people who currently have nothing to do with football,

If I have no money with which to buy a football club, how can I seriously be considered a fit and proper prospective owner of one? 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels

[ExiledAjax]

30 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Thanks.

When Lansdown's ready to sell, I'll be sure to let him know I'm interested.

The fact I don't have a brass farthing to my name might put him off but at least the EFL will consider me a fit and proper prospective owner. God help us. 

Well yeh, you'd pass the Appendix 3 test.

But you would also still need to provide future financial information, and satisfy the EFL that the club, under you and your financial backing, could fulfil a season in the League. 

You'd also obviously have to meet Steve's asking price. I think you'd need at least 4 farthings, brass or otherwise.

But that's all on top of and in addition to the O&D test rather than a part of it.

[Monkeh]

23 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

If I have no money with which to buy a football club, how can I seriously be considered a fit and proper prospective owner of one? 

That's what providing proof of funds is all about,

Or let's put it another way, please provide me your bank statement proving to me that you can afford to go to ashton gate so I can decide if you are worthy of buying a ticket

Edited June 14, 2022 by Monkeh

[chinapig]

22 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

If I have no money with which to buy a football club,

That's a description of Kirchner so with your credentials you could string Quantuma along for months.

[CyderInACan]

54 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Thanks.

When Lansdown's ready to sell, I'll be sure to let him know I'm interested.

The fact I don't have a brass farthing to my name might put him off but at least the EFL will consider me a fit and proper prospective owner. God help us. 

They might; I wouldn't! 

[Merrick's Marvels]

Just now, CyderInACan said:

They might; I wouldn't! 

Is the correct answer

Just imagine it though! 

[CyderInACan]

1 minute ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Is the correct answer

Just imagine it though! 

I'm trying to stop imagining it! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I wonder what this means...not a clue on my part, but it looks interesting.

[Sir Geoff]

1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

If I have no money with which to buy a football club, how can I seriously be considered a fit and proper prospective owner of one? 

You don't need money to buy a football club, Just ask the Glazers and the Burnley owners. OK they have money but they didn't use it to buy said clubs.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Andy Holt- succinctly put, think he sums up some of the current (as per Nixon) antipathy among other clubs to Derby.

https://twitter.com/AndyhHolt/status/1536701793245270016

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I wonder what this means...not a clue on my part, but it looks interesting.

Probably as exciting as the BCFC Companies House filing!  More than likely the resignation of a Joint Administrator, and maybe, drums roll, the appointment of a new Joint Administrator, entirely routine happens all the time.

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 hour ago, Sir Geoff said:

You don't need money to buy a football club, Just ask the Glazers and the Burnley owners. OK they have money but they didn't use it to buy said clubs.

Michael Knighton! 

Kirchner eat yer heart out. 

[BTRFTG]

On 14/06/2022 at 11:20, ExiledAjax said:

Ok, I'm not going to argue about what you originally said. The post of yours that I originally quoted is still posted a few pages back, so we can all go and read it if we want to.

But, again you've used the word "believe" several times when describing what Derby County Football Club Limited (in administration) or their Joint Administrators can currently do, or can currently benefit from. You say this in relation to the status of Derby County Football Club Limited (in administration) as a Member Club of The English Football League Ltd.

As an example, you say that you don't think Derby currently has the right to vote as an EFL Member Club. OK, let's test that. Firstly, nowhere in the articles of association of The English Football League Ltd or the EFL Regulations does it say that a Club automatically loses this right upon entering administration. In fact the articles (in particular 10.10, 11.5, 12) suggest, although voting rights are not expressly addressed, that any club that is a Member Club (ie any entity that holds a share from time to time) is entitled to vote. From my reading it looks like the only way this right to vote could possibly have been removed is if it was one of the conditions to suspension contained within the Notice of Withdrawal. Now we haven't seen that document, so we cannot be sure of the exact conditions contained within it.

However, if the right to vote was purported to be removed from Derby under the Notice of Withdrawal then that would amount to an amendment of the rights attaching to a share. As all shares of the same class must have the same rights (otherwise you're deemed to have created a new class of share), then (in the absence of anything in the articles) doing this should require a special resolution of the other shareholders of that class of share (ie 75% of the 71 other clubs) to alter those share rights. We'd also see a filing on Companies House to that effect. No such filing is shown on the Companies House webpage for The English Football League Ltd, and so we can assume this has not happened. Therefore we should assume that Derby are still able to vote as a Member Club.

You are correct that no Derby representative can stand for election to the Board of the EFL. That's in the articles (article 20.1.14). They also cannot put forward anyone to be an EFL rep on the FA's board (article 24.6.12).

Of course the Joint Administrators don't take beneficial ownership of the shares of the company they administer. Is that relevant to Derby County Football Club Limited (in administration)'s membership of the EFL? Membership is determined by ownership of a share - ie ownership of legal title, not beneficial ownership. I agree that the statement yesterday and the EFL stepping in as they are suggests that the EFL do not believe the administrators are acting as they should...but that statement and actions doesn't in anyway suggest that Derby are no longer a Member Club.

Yes. That is exactly what article (not regulation) 4.8 says. There is no problem with them doing that at all because it's in the rules - rules that apply to Derby because they are a member of the EFL.

I'm not trying to point score or argue, and I do agree with some aspects of what you say, there are some things that Derby (or its admins and directors etc) cannot do because they are in admin. However, this conversation needs to be held on certain terms. I'm stating the certainty of the articles, the regulations, and corporate law. You are stating occurrences that if true have big consequences, but you're not providing evidence to support your beliefs. Saying they've been expelled, saying they cannot vote anymore, this sort of stuff feeds the fantasy 'EFL vendetta' nonsense that Derby fans are spouting. It undermines confidence in the EFL as a body, and sows seeds of confusion amongst fans.

I think we're somewhere between semantics and practicality and doubtless will find out soon. No vendetta, but wasn't there something similar in the Bury case? There I believe questions were raised as to their ability to raise resolutions (seeking absolution from previous failings perhaps,) and their inability to bid for upcoming grants, both of which would fall within the normal remit of members. In previous insolvencies where grants/loans were recalled, so as to ring-fence under 'football debt' but in doing so breaking the camel's back, I think the criteria as to how and when this was done was also questioned, it appearing to be related more to status, history and popularity amongst fellow members than statute regulation. Likewise, I'm uncertain of the EFL & PL payment distribution schedules but think some of these are close season to help clubs out with cashflow. Once in administration I think these may be deferred and set aside to cover 'football related' debt where insolvency looks an imminent possibility, football acting to protect its members using the unusual circumstance of priorities administrators may not question.

In Bury's case wasn't influence also sought as to how far peers would let them fall down the pyramid (which as you know isn't cut and dried in FA regulation and historically has been applied to suit - the old 'have to apply AND be accepted ploy'?)

Derby may retain a voting share, point being are they able to exercise it and, if do, for what?  Are they automatically entitled to draw down on grants and distributions which through membership they would normally have access? If they are that's presumably through the administrators, though as I highlighted is that proven as from the EFL's terse comments at the weekend that doesn't appear to be a given? One supposes should Derby directors retain the vote this might that be exercised with the expressed authority of the administrators, though from what I've heard at City such EFL matters tend to be decided at pace either via electronic exchange or emergency meeting, neither of which leave leeway for delayed 3rd party authorizations. If administrators are not recognised to vote (though the club retains a voting share,) effectively Derby are a member in name only, in limbo, up the creek without a paddle at EFL's mercy. So yes, that would have serious consequences should that be the case. 

The administrators (should) wear many hats so strikes me the EFL could run into problems should a challenged yet exercised vote within their structure be of disbenefit to creditors. You've already highlighted areas which are impacted once entering administration where membership 'rights' are effectively denied but which return once exiting administration.

I'm trying to find the previous guidance, though think much of that produced by the EFL is done on the fly, so it may have changed case by case.

[ExiledAjax]

18 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I think we're somewhere between semantics and practicality and doubtless will find out soon.

Membership status isn't a semantic, Derby are a member of the EFL for the moment.

Bury was quite similar to the current Derby predicament yes. Just under 3 years ago Bury were under a CVA, and as that's an Insolvency Event, the EFL had served them with a Notice of Withdrawal, suspended subject to conditions - same as Derby have. Bury were able to kick that can down the road long enough to be included on the fixture list, but then were unable to prove financing for the season. Their first few games were postponed, and then ultimately the were expelled from the League. Note that a BBC report from the time states that the EFL said it was willing to "commence negotiations with the club [Bury] to enter into a membership agreement, which will incorporate the ongoing conditions for continued membership in the league and ensure the terms of the CVA are met". So it seems the EFL are open to creating specific conditions for distressed clubs, in order to allow them to continue in the EFL.

Naturally this was possible only because Bury were under a CVA, and so were forecast to survive as a company (and if I recall correctly the company did survive, even after expulsion form the EFL). Derby on the other hand have not agreed a CVA, and are literally under threat of ceasing to exist, so negotiating an ongoing 'membership agreement' would be pointless at this stage.

I'm really not sure on how Derby's status affects their rights to distributions and other payments from the EFL. If I can pontificate briefly then to me it would seem perverse to deny a member club in financial distress of these payments. Unless there is proof that money is currently being taken out of the entity for illegal reasons, then the EFL should do what it can to improve a member's financial standing - stopping short of special treatment of course. 

As to voting, as I said I've seen nothing to suggest that a member club subject to a Notice of Withdrawal has any voting rights or powers removed.

Anyway, I see they've just lost Allsop to Cardiff...so I think that's them down to 4 contracted players now. Not even good enough for the after-work 5-a-side league.

 

[Bristol Rob]

So do they need to sort this before the fixtures come out or not?

[Monkeh]

16 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

So do they need to sort this before the fixtures come out or not?

No, but even if the are included on the fixtures it doesn't mean they will start the season

[ExiledAjax]

Telegraph are reporting that Mike Ashley has filed a claim against Carl Jackson, one of the 3 joint administrators.

Ashley is claiming that Jackson "...made representations that he knew were false during potential takeover talks.

Legal documents allege that Ashley's group, MASH, were told they were named as preferred bidders in January and it is claimed Jackson failed to inform the Football League, despite insisting he would.

It is also alleged that Jackson did this with the intention that MASH would continue to engage in the bidding process, incurring costs in doing so, and to submit a formal bid which would drive up the price for other bidders.

MASH are insisting this conduct amounts to deceit and they are seeking damages, with the claim filed at the High Court earlier this week."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/06/16/mike-ashley-launches-high-court-claim-against-quantuma-administrator/

This doesn't directly affect Derby County - the club won't be liable for any damages, and isn't involved in the case. However, its the first (to my knowledge) formal claim against one of the joint administrators for what is essentially incompetence bordering on attempted fraud. It gives an insight into the talks, and really puts Quantuma in a tricky spot.

Ups the ante certainly.

Edited June 16, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

Time to get some popcorn out again?

I must also add, there is a bit in that article, well I don't see how it is compatible with EFL regs and fair value...they SOLD the stadium, to reunite it rent free is wholly unacceptable.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[1960maaan]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Time to get some popcorn out again?

I must also add, there is a bit in that article, well I don't see how it is compatible with EFL regs and fair value...they SOLD the stadium, to reunite it rent free is wholly unacceptable.

And , in my eyes, proves it was a con trick .

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

And , in my eyes, proves it was a con trick .

Derby fans are saying it'll be fine and dandy, well a few on Twitter anyway...I wonder if other clubs will in fact concur.

If it comes down to it, don't transfer the golden share or failing that put the Mike Ashley era under such restrictions that he may as well not have bothered while the dispute remains live.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Time to get some popcorn out again?

I must also add, there is a bit in that article, well I don't see how it is compatible with EFL regs and fair value...they SOLD the stadium, to reunite it rent free is wholly unacceptable.

This bit?

"A spokesman for MASH said on Thursday night: "Mike Ashley believes that the stadium and the football club need to be purchased with the same owner, as there is no way Derby in its current position can justify paying rent for the stadium.

"If he was successful in purchasing the club and stadium, he would undertake that no rent would ever be paid for the stadium." 

He's saying that he wants to buy the stadium...and is it implied that he'd then 'reunite' it with the Club company? Either as a direct asset or perhaps through a subsidiary newco? Is that against Regs? 

Either way, it's some tactic from Ashley to sue on of the JAs at this late stage. Balls out and off we go.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

This bit?

"A spokesman for MASH said on Thursday night: "Mike Ashley believes that the stadium and the football club need to be purchased with the same owner, as there is no way Derby in its current position can justify paying rent for the stadium.

"If he was successful in purchasing the club and stadium, he would undertake that no rent would ever be paid for the stadium." 

He's saying that he wants to buy the stadium...and is it implied that he'd then 'reunite' it with the Club company? Either as a direct asset or perhaps through a subsidiary newco? Is that against Regs? 

Either way, it's some tactic from Ashley to sue on of the JAs at this late stage. Balls out and off we go.

 

I'd have thought that there is a big issue there yes- the Agreed Decision which binds the club not just who ran it at the time, states that the Reporting Entity cannot be changed without EFL consent in writing. Rent counts against P&S calculations but it's fairly unchartered territory- if the £40m profit on disposal was valid then a fair rent and the lease well it follows surely?

@Hxj  ?

Edited June 16, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'd have thought that there is a big issue there yes- the Agreed Decision which binds the club not just who ran it at the time, states that the Reporting Entity cannot be changed without EFL consent in writing. Rent counts against P&S calculations but it's fairly unchartered territory- if the £40m profit on disposal was valid then a fair rent and the lease well it follows surely?

@Hxj  ?

Does the Agreed Decision bind the stadium company...one of those Gellaw company's isn't it? I honestly cannot remember?

If it only binds The Derby County Football Club Ltd, then couldn't you incorporate a newco subsidiary of that company, and use that to buy the stadium. Or you could just buy that Gellas entity. I dunno, there's a few ways you could structure it.

Secondly, does the Agreed Decision expire upon an exit from Admin? Is it replaced at that point by a business plan or something? If so then that could mean this would be ok?

There's a lot of things we don't know of course so I'm reticent to discount Ashley's plans immediately. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Does the Agreed Decision bind the stadium company...one of those Gellaw company's isn't it? I honestly cannot remember?

If it only binds The Derby County Football Club Ltd, then couldn't you incorporate a newco subsidiary of that company, and use that to buy the stadium. Or you could just buy that Gellas entity. I dunno, there's a few ways you could structure it.

Secondly, does the Agreed Decision expire upon an exit from Admin? Is it replaced at that point by a business plan or something? If so then that could mean this would be ok?

There's a lot of things we don't know of course so I'm reticent to discount Ashley's plans immediately. 

I think it was discussed before- EFL would have a pretty good case perhaps.

It surely binds the club and the overall reporting entity of the club and all subsidiaries- remember the club sat under Sevco 5112 and perhaps Gellaw Newco 203. Devil in detail as you say...

Stadium company is Gellaw Newco 202 and the parent of that is Gellaw Newco 204. It would need to be reconsolidated for sure if that bit was brought...

Business Plan requires EFL approval- if Mike Ashley's Business Plan includes this idea then the Business Plan in that form should be knocked back.

Agreed- can't discount entirely but surely a takeover of a club in that state requires the Golden Share to be transferred- quite a nice bargaining chip to have!

Don't transfer the Golden Share or don't approve the Business Plan Ashley has to submit if it comes down to it is my preferred course of action.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Seems Mike Ashley wants a very good deal indeed. No idea of the credence of the poster however.

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Monkeh]

The point deduction thing will be a massive sticking point, the efl can't bend the rules to save Derby that just opens them up to all kind of legal ramifications 

[Mr Popodopolous]

No embargo/business plan, clean slate too is also at odds with the EFL's Insolvency Policy.

Points deduction- well it depends on whether he hits the minimum criteria of 25% or 35% in 3 years- it's not a given but there are minimum criteria.

Seen it suggested that their total HMRC discount might be 50%- ie payment plan 25% up front and another 25% over 3 years- although this is Kirchner, anything pre Ashley etc.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Bristol Rob]

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Seems Mike Ashley wants a very good deal indeed.

 

Moon on a stick.

But.... if he is the only bidder in town...

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Moon on a stick.

But.... if he is the only bidder in town...

...Then he complies with the EFL's minimum criteria and their wishes for a 2 or 3 year monitoring/business plan, points off if minimum not met- or the Golden Share is withheld.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[luke_bristol]

What if the points deduction is waived and a club are relegated, one point and one place below Derby? That’s surely an impossible condition to expect from the EFL.

[Bristol Rob]

10 minutes ago, luke_bristol said:

What if the points deduction is waived and a club are relegated, one point and one place below Derby? That’s surely an impossible condition to expect from the EFL.

The EFL were so enthralled by last seasons F1 they want to make it up as they go along.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Seems Mike Ashley wants a very good deal indeed. No idea of the credence of the poster however.

 

Nixon was adamant the other day that £21.4m was the price, there was no negotiation downwards!!!

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Nixon was adamant the other day that £21.4m was the price, there was no negotiation downwards!!!

For sure, but we know what Mike Ashley is like...do we know if that was just to avoid the -15 or for actual retention of membership?

He also said that bidders are aiming lower I believe- but Mike Ashley's proposed terms feel unacceptable.

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

No idea of the credence of the poster however.

Haven't they also stated that Appleby & Co are offering £50 million?

Equally as unlikely.

[Lrrr]

EFL to lose whatever spine it has to make sure a club like Derby doesn't go bust

[Mr Popodopolous]

25 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Haven't they also stated that Appleby & Co are offering £50 million?

Equally as unlikely.

Unsure where the source of that was from.

9 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

EFL to lose whatever spine it has to make sure a club like Derby doesn't go bust

EFL IS the clubs though...Nixon suggested on Tuesday that other clubs were furious at Derby- think it was Tuesday anyway. This would be part of Ashley's gameplan though I guess.

[chinapig]

46 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Unsure where the source of that was from.

A quick check of their forum reveals the source to be a woman from Long Eaton who works as a personal trainer. So a better source than Nixon then.

[Mr Popodopolous]

31 minutes ago, chinapig said:

A quick check of their forum reveals the source to be a woman from Long Eaton who works as a personal trainer. So a better source than Nixon then.

I mean...perhaps she has had/has Mel Morris as a client- perhaps she trains people (Derbyshire wise) in high places- so you never know I guess.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I have a suggestion or two for the EFL to help the process along- supporters group letter to Quantuma and EFL. 

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/dcfc-supporters-groups-letter-to-quantuma-and-efl/

The Bury template is one solution- you could say, but with a lot more legalese.

Quote

"Wrap it up within all requirements by the release of the fixtures or membership/the Golden Share is suspended.

"Further to this, like with Bolton and Bury you get until the end of August as the Notice of Withdrawal can be activated- to help this process along, fixtures can be suspended if required in order to assist the club in focusing on finding a new buyer- suspended fixtures like with Bury can be made up but once it gets beyond August that has a real impact on the calendar".

That would help to bounce everyone along a bit- a deadline, followed by a next stage deadline- followed if not completed within all requirements- by removal from the League.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Ska Junkie]

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Seems Mike Ashley wants a very good deal indeed. No idea of the credence of the poster however.

 

The answer to that, from the EFL, HMRC et Al would surely be 'no'?

He's essentially saying 'let us off everything' as I read it! Court cases everywhere if that is allowed surely and no punishment whatsoever for DCFC who can spend, spend, spend.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Ska Junkie

[Lanterne Rouge]

Derby County: Where will crisis club turn next after takeover collapse? - BBC Sport

Interesting that this article says a deal for the stadium has been `agreed in principal (sic)`

[22A]

On 16/06/2022 at 15:55, Monkeh said:

No, but even if the are included on the fixtures it doesn't mean they will start the season

or finish it.

[Major Isewater]

One of my sons is delighted to have finally got Mike Ashley out of his club and the other is looking likely to be the next frustrated angry supporter as he follows his home town club,  Derby. 
( Serves them both right, the splitters) 

[chinapig]

Looks like there could be a joint bid to stop Ashley. Also the EFL is prepared to wait  beyond Thursday when the fixtures are published. Which Derby fans will find a way of claiming is all part of the conspiracy against them no doubt.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/derby-takeover-latest-mike-ashley-27267532

[Bristol Rob]

 

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

 

Wow, that’ll help goodwill.

[ExiledAjax]

Invoking the great god of GDPR to block a condition contained within a Notice of withdrawal from the League. Quantuma clearly have an awful lot that they don't want the EFL to read. 

Would be amazing if the EFL played hard ball and kicked Derby out for this.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Invoking the great god of GDPR to block a condition contained within a Notice of withdrawal from the League. Quantuma clearly have an awful lot that they don't want the EFL to read. 

Would be amazing if the EFL played hard ball and kicked Derby out for this.

Can just see a meme of Trevor Birch holding a golden share over a shredder!

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Can just see a meme of Trevor Birch holding a golden share over a shredder!

Andronikou across the room holding a lighter to a stack of emails from Appleby.

Pistols at dawn.

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Andronikou across the room holding a lighter to a stack of emails from Appleby.

Pistols at dawn.

The flint in the lighter will spark imminently is the threat!

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The flint in the lighter will spark imminently is the threat!

Forever imminent. 

Jokes aside this reads like pretty desperate stuff from Q. 

It's also another example of how the EFLs rules clash with standard laws and regs like GDPR. As with the admin exit requirements we again see Q arguing that Derby are essentially just a normal company, and so only really interested in your everyday laws. The EFL then overlay their own rules that apply to their members. Which ones win out ultimately comes down to how hard the EFL are willing to stand by their rules. 

I'm expecting a passive aggressive asterisk next to Derby's name in the fixture list on Thursday. 

[Ska Junkie]

57 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

 

Eh?

We want to join your competition but you can't speak to any purchasers? What about the 'EFL fit and proper' rules?

Derby really aren't helping themselves are they?

[Davefevs]

I notice supermarkets are saying they are selling copious amounts of popcorn in stores in EFL club locations!!

[Oh Brasso]

According to the article, Quantuma are funding the administration by getting advances from MSD. MSD are securing these advances against the stadium. This implies to me that the stadium would have to be sold or receive guaranteed rent for MSD to get any of this back. The only party that would have any interest in Pride Park as a stadium would be Derby County and nobody is going to pay the "market value" for Pride Park to buy Derby County. Is it just me thinking if this was any normal business, Derby would've been shut down ages ago. My head hurts.

[Monkeh]

7 hours ago, red from the blue side said:

According to the article, Quantuma are funding the administration by getting advances from MSD. MSD are securing these advances against the stadium. This implies to me that the stadium would have to be sold or receive guaranteed rent for MSD to get any of this back. The only party that would have any interest in Pride Park as a stadium would be Derby County and nobody is going to pay the "market value" for Pride Park to buy Derby County. Is it just me thinking if this was any normal business, Derby would've been shut down ages ago. My head hurts.

How are the securing money against the stadium then Derby doesn't own it, Mel Morris does,

 

[Port Said Red]

29 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

How are the securing money against the stadium then Derby doesn't own it, Mel Morris does,

Who owns something, the person who buys it or the person supplying the cash?

[Port Said Red]

12 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Pointless. If the EFL has final say over the owners, why does it matter when they see the details. It must be quicker and easier to get the EFL bit out of the way first, what's the point in getting 95% of the way there and then having the EFL say no?

[downendcity]

2 hours ago, billywedlock said:

Whilst I am sure the EFL will have been irritated by this latest nonsense, though it will have legal substance, it seems to me they were only try to expedite the process. I also do not imagine that the EFL will make it ore difficult for the takeover completion, it is not in their interests. However, Derby are getting close to the point where the EFL will not want to commit to having Derby in L1 if there is a great risk that they will not be able to fulfil the season, or even have enough players to start it.  The funding to cover ongoing administration is coming from MSD, who are allowing Morris to borrow against the stadium, so in effect Morris is funding the admin process/ongoing wages. However, the loans are getting close to what the land value (maybe exceeded already) of Pride Park, so MSD are hardly going to be lending much more. There has to come a point when the EFL have to say enough, other clubs are clearly angry with Derby, or should we say the shambles of Quantuma, who went down the road with a blagger, that anyone with an ounce of sense would have found out was never going to complete the deal (and even if he had, they would have been back in Admin before seasons end). The stark reality is that the debts far exceed the clubs value, and the cost of exiting administration is also too strong for investors, even at the £22M Nixon quoted, which should have been acceptable to others, but as with all of this, the full story is not really out there is it. Ongoing funding has also to be provided, and then the stadium issue. The club is not an ongoing concern, it is effectively bankrupt. The person who needed to solve this all was Morris, but he has sought to minimise any further losses , pushing Derby further into a dark hole. Bidders are still there, same names from months before, so what has changed apart from the debts are now higher. Liquidation could also be the better solution right now, and they restart in non league as DCFC 2022. In 5 years they would be back at L1/Champ and had some fun along the way. 

The EFL will have to set a clear deadline now , to accept or not Derby into L1 next season. As it stands, they cannot , as there is no club. The season starts in 6 weeks. 

That post will surely elevate you well up the Derby Fans hit list, along with Mr P  and Davefevs,  for stating harsh, but home truths, along the lines of the Emperor's new clothes.

There is a worry that Ashley is increasingly looking like the only interested party, but that he will use that position to extract what is (for him) the best possible deal.  From what I've read Ashley seems to be using his position as the only buyer to force the EFL to waive any points deduction, to avoid, or at least substantially reduce what is owed to HMRC and to get Pride Park back for nothing , or next to nothing.

Surely, the price for DCFC is what it is because the club does not own Pride Park, has been relegated to league 1, will likely incur a points deduction for next season and has an outstanding tax liability to HMRC. If the EFL and/or HMRC give in to Ashley's demands then it makes an even bigger mockery of financial rules, and punishment for breaches thereof, than have DCFC/Mel Morris over the last 3/4 years, and which got them into this mess in the first place.

Many have said that it will perhaps take a big club to go to the wall before all clubs take the financial regulations seriously. While none of us would want a club to fail ( I remember our predicament in 1982) perhaps this is the moment that the EFL has to decide where it's priorities lie - with one big club, or with the other 71!

 

[chinapig]

31 minutes ago, downendcity said:

If the EFL and/or HMRC give in to Ashley's demands then it makes an even bigger mockery of financial rules, and punishment for breaches thereof

True but you will find claims on their forum for example that the P&S rules are unwritten so the EFL is making them up as it goes along and that the EFL insolvency policy is not in the public domain. Ludicrous claims like these tend not to be challenged by other posters.

Of course it is all on the EFL website so I can only conclude that those posters can write but not read or simply don't know how to find a website.

But of course if they were ever to find and actually read the documents they would just insist that they shouldn't apply to them because they're special.

[fgrsimon]

Wonder if Oldham might get a reprieve if Derby go? EFL won't want an uneven number of teams in any league, so reprieve Gillingham to L1 and Oldham to L2?

[Davefevs]

54 minutes ago, fgrsimon said:

Wonder if Oldham might get a reprieve if Derby go? EFL won't want an uneven number of teams in any league, so reprieve Gillingham to L1 and Oldham to L2?

The rules will mean 23 teams in Lg1, according to others. 

[Lanterne Rouge]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The rules will mean 23 teams in Lg1, according to others. 

It has to be really. Clubs will already have budgeted/signed and released players based on the league they expected to be in.

[Monkeh]

10 hours ago, fgrsimon said:

Wonder if Oldham might get a reprieve if Derby go? EFL won't want an uneven number of teams in any league, so reprieve Gillingham to L1 and Oldham to L2?

Nope league 1 will run with 23 teams with only 3 going down but 4 still coming up 

[Davefevs]

Changed his tune.