TooFarInToTurnRed

3 hours ago, WestKentRam said:

Of course I understand where a lot of posters are coming from, but I'm just conscious I don't want Boro and the EFL to actually be playing the long game, hoping we make a load of libellous comments on here so they will actually come after us fans for compo rather than the club!

I'm trying to deal in the facts of this whole sorry affair, but it's become so tortuous and complicated that I find it hard to get my head around the timeline and how exactly we have arrived at this current situation. So while awaiting Mr Gibson's yay or nay to Mel's offer I'm piecing together such a timeline for my own benefit, to try and counter those who just come out with ridiculous statements such as 'well you cheated so you deserve to be liquidated', with reference to what the club has actually done compared to others in the league, and how we were found guilty in what feels like a very unfair process.

On reflection, I do wonder if Mel is actually such a villain in all this that he is portrayed as.

He was pursued by the EFL and Boro over a number of years with an ongoing transfer embargo and the sense that a huge points deduction was looming with likely relegation and possible successive relegations on the cards. There was a massive financial claim outstanding making a sale of the club by him very unlikely. So cutting his losses by entering administration would seem like the next step to give administrators a chance of resolving these issues by removing himself, as it had become very personal between him, the EFL and Boro.

Of course I understand this does not factor in the terrible cost to staff, businesses and charities owed money by the club, but would be interested to know if an owner has ever personally settled a businesses' debts first then put it into administration, as this would seem to be a most unusually altruistic thing to do from a business and personal finance point of view.

With regard to the money owed to HMRC an accountant I know has had a preliminary look at the club's audited accounts accessible on the Companies House website just to informally try to answer a question for me. They only extend up to 2018 but I am told that up to this point there was no money owed to HMRC. The £26-£29m owed is not from trading ie it is from PAYE, NI and VAT. When did the club start getting behind with these payments after 2018? How much can be explained by going into administration and amounts owed over the course of a year due to this?

Thought some of this the tax due on the sale of the ground which was in effect a paper exercise.

Could explain why they would be likely to accept a low settlement as realistically it’s not money they have really lost out on. 

16 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

Printing MM’s statement now and will be on the road in 5min, can someone call Rick Parry and let him know should make it to their Preston office just before 5pm.

EFL have more clowns than Billy Smart  

20 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Oh, oh, ask @BoroWillperhaps he'll know which club?

I would prefer to ask him how Derby with revenue of £29.1m and a loss of £47m gained an unfair advantage over Boro with a revenue of £55.6m and a loss of £28m.

Derby spent £76.1m and Boro spent £83.6 yet we cheated according to them by actually spending less due to an arbitrary limit on losses. The reason they do not want this heard in a proper court is that on the rules do not make sense in the real world.

17 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

My original wording was that every other club used it, somebody else introduced the word standard and I carried on with it. 

Are you sure that every other club uses straight line amortisation fairly?

Is it not true that clubs cheat this regularly by claiming Impairments in favourable accounting periods like Stoke have most recently due to Covid and I believe was common among teams being relegated from the PL but must say haven’t checked.

16 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Sheff Utd 18/19
£21.3m loss
£40.7m wage bill

15 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Sheff Utd 18/19
£21.3m loss
£40.7m wage bill

When you adjust for player promotion bonuses and addon transfer fees that were dependent on promotion what does that do to the figures?

The bonuses for the players alone was 8 figures if memory serves correct. 

53 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Well WW's owner is meant to be a hot shot lawyer so he's probably given himself some advice.  They've also written a letter before action - I don't know about you, maybe you are a lawyer, but I hadn't heard of a LBA before all this started happening.  It certainly suggests that lawyers have been involved at WW somewhere along the line.

We know that M have had legal advice because the lawyer apparently isn't available until May which is causing some delay in proceedings.

My, somewhat jaundiced I accept, view of the legal profession is that there is always a lawyer willing to argue a case. I would accept that no lawyer will ever say to anyone - you are guaranteed to win.  Perhaps the M/WW lawyers have said that their chances are less than 50% but perhaps M/WW are happy to take those odds.

Whether we like it or not M do have a case.  We may not think it's a very good or strong one, we may well feel that the consequences to football will be catastrophic should their case prevail, but they do have a case.  How strong it is will ideally be tested in the HC so that we can move on in the meantime

Not a lawyer but have written a couple of LBA’s in my time! They don’t need to be anything special just set out what you think you are owed and why then give them 14 days to respond before taking legal action.

Strange thing to say that so adamantly that Middlesboro do have a case when nobody knows what would have happened if Derby spent less or Boro spent more. That season Sheff Utd got promoted with a much lower budget than most in the division I suspect. 

5 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Why would they think that they will lose?  Both M and WW's owners have been absolutely clear that they think they have a good case.  The EFL, despite their chairman apparently not having the foggiest idea what the cases are, also think that they have a case to argue - though it isn't clear how they have reached that decision.  Both M and WW have apparently had legal advice which is obviously not telling them that they will lose, otherwise they would have quietly dropped the cases.

Gibbon may well hate Mel and want money.  He might even hate us and DCFC generally.  Ditto the yank.  They might both judge that delaying the process helps them win their cases (though I think they both accuse both Mel and Q as being the cause of more delays) but I would be convinced that they both think that they have a case that they can win

Are you sure Wycombe have actually had any legal advice? I understood that they have not filed any formal proceedings at all but have just sent a ‘Letter before action’ which will have cost virtually nothing.

Potential costs of any sort of proceedings either through EFL or Courts would I suspect would make them reappraise. Contrary to popular belief I think most decent lawyers would tell their client honestly if they did not have a case and even refuse representation if they adamantly felt they would lose. They wouldn’t just pursue it for a payday. 

11 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I could be wrong, but I think the problem is that the administrators can't get a CVA because HMRC won't settle for for any figure that the bidders will pay. 

The restructuring plan effectively reduces HMRC to an unsecured creditor, and they'll just get the same percentage as the rest. If it's less than 25% we get a points deduction, but I think most bidders will accept that as the business plan will prevent a promotion push for a couple of seasons.

Football creditors will also be entitled to the same, but presumably the new owners will voluntarily make up the difference to stay in the league.

That's why I don't think that Mel's offer will actually help. We need these claims sorting before we run out of cash, and a court case won't be quick. 

It's profoundly irritating, but if Mel wants to get this sorted, he'll have to make them a cash offer. The alternative is the Arbitration route, but I think everyone is rightly suspicious of any EFL mandated hearings. 

I personally don’t think HMRC is an issue, I think there is already an agreement but Q haven’t seen fit to tell the EFL as it would be undoubtedly leaked and used in their propaganda. I’d be quite confident the bidders all know what the minimum price will be and the fact that they are still around says they are willing to meet that.

Not well versed in law but suspect the MSD debt may not be included in any headline ‘sale price’ as I believe it would move to the parent/sister company that owns the stadium.

1 hour ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Could it now be any clearer? In the space of 48 hours the EFL have stated BOTH that the club has the offer of EITHER 'impartial' arbitration OR the High Courts as a means to satisfy claims AND that they now acknowledges MFC/WWFC as football creditors, which would leave arbitration as the sole route forward. Wholly contradictory statements and yet another example of their contemptuous abuse of power. There has been no discussion, no arbitration and no independent input to this decision, rather it is a call made arbitrarily and unilaterally by the EFL board with no outside consultation and in contravention of their own directives. Do these clowns even read what they regurgitate into the public domain? Do they not even cross-reference the claims made in one with the other? The inconsistencies (read: huge ducking porkies) are glaring and have been for two years now. Likewise Gibson who appears to have the attention span of a hungry toddler and the linguistic skills of one too.

Heads must now roll at the EFL. There is NO ROOM FOR DOUBT anymore. In their poorly conceived and executed PR campaign seeking to shift the onus to Morris, the admins and even the 'highest bidder', they have absolutely tied themselves in knots and in doing so, have threatened both the stability and integrity of the League they are meant to govern and serve. 

At this point, the 72 member clubs simply must act. There can be no remaining doubt that the EFL prioritises its own interests over those of its member clubs. Ladies and gentlemen, the tail is clearly wagging the dog. This is, of course, a wholly unacceptable state of affairs and will inevitably lead to chaos should the precedent they seek to set be entertained. Every subsequent season will start with multiple different fixture lists as the governing body and civil courts wade through dozens of spurious football related claims, clubs will be forced into admin and /or liquidation and the league system as we know it, will fail. A vote of no confidence and the immediate resignations of Rick Parry and Trevor Birch are now mandatory requirements on the long road back to credible and impartial governance of the League. For any governing body, as custodians of football, to bring bring the English game into such hopeless disrepute is simply unforgiveable and action must be taken sooner rather than later, irrespective of the situation at Derby County.

As for Messrs Gibson and Couhig, your bluff has now been called. If you truly believe in the veracity of your claims and are not simply looking to leverage the threat of liquidation to extort funds from a club who has already accepted its punishment (in keeping with the EFL's own directives), it's time for you to accept Mr Morris's offer of your day in court. Any other course of action will merely confirm suspicions of the very unsavoury motivations that have led to what appears to have been a merit-less witch-hunt borne solely out of greed and petty personal grievances. I'm looking at you specifically Gibson. You chose to prioritise continuing your spat with Mel Morris over the future of the club, the welfare of it's employees, the sustainability of local businesses and the mental health of the wider community. This will NEVER be forgotten, nor forgiven. I speak only for myself when I say that having been a chairman whom I once held in high regard, I have now come to despise everything for which you stand. 

I trust also that those on this forum who openly mocked posters who for two years have openly expressed the view that the EFL's treatment of Derby County Football Club has been less than impartial, will now take time to think about whether said posts were fair, warranted or helpful. Hindsight, it is true, is a wonderful thing, but so too is an open mind.

A last thought in regards to Mel Morris; Mel, I was one of your staunchest supporters. I was wrong. It broke my heart when you placed the club into administration. Perhaps there are mitigating circumstances as yet unknown, but we are where we are and you sir, were the custodian of this club we all love. Inevitably, the buck stops with you. All of this notwithstanding, thank you for the steps you have now taken to break the impasse. What's done can't be changed, but I do hope that this will at least give harsher critics some small pause for thought. 

Putting my head above the parapet, I have stayed away from criticising MM for 2 reasons. 

Firstly, I am sure there is simply far too much I don’t know about the reasons the club ended up here which will inevitably come out at some point  

Secondly and most importantly, I couldn’t in all honesty say that if I was MM I wouldn’t have let my heart rule my head and ended up in exactly the same place. It would be hypocritical to criticise on that basis imo. 

14 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Please don’t suggest I don’t care about it

if you seriously think the EFl are supporting Gibson then you can’t see what is playing out in front of your eyes. Despite a mountain of evidence. 
 

There’s no harm pillorying the EFl with emails, in fact it all helps. As do protests in Derby against EFl and Boro and the rest. But you get a load of Derby fans outside EFl House and you risk events spiralling out of control in a very bad way, which will attract more press attention that all of our efforts to date. And will bring shame on us all and damage the club that I love just as much as you 

I emailed Rick Parry yesterday morning but not had a response:

Dear Mr Parry,

 I would like some clarification on the statement put out by your organisation on 3rd February 2022 regarding the situation of Derby County.

Point 1, the statement that “no Club should gain (or seek to gain) any advantage within the context of professional football over other Clubs by not paying all its creditors in full at all times” appears incongruent with the fact that Nottingham Forest, were according to their published accounts, write off a loan of £5million during the year ending 2020 with no apparent recourse. Is this an oversight and you will look to immediately rectify or do different rules apply?

Point 2, the statement is clearly prejudicial and clearly insinuates the claims from Middlesbrough and Wycombe are debts. As I understand it they are not and therefore should not referred to, even by insinuation, as debts. They are heavily disputed claims. The definition of a debt is “the obligation to pay a sum of money owed” and at present no obligation exist. Will you acknowledge and release a statement to the effect that these are not debts as they are currently untested? I believe by referring to them as you have you may have prejudiced the cases against Derby County.

Point 3, I understand that the current regulation specifically prohibits taking legal action outside of the EFL framework but that this is now you current proposed action. This will undoubtedly lead to a significant increase in legal costs for all parties, should Derby be successfully exonerated will the EFL cover these costs as it failed in its duty under its own regulations?  

Finally, it is rumoured in the press that several Championship clubs are likely to breach the Profit & Sustainability regulations during the current season. Can you confirm that this summer you will again be using ‘interchangeable fixture lists and will support compensation claims made against such clubs by others?  As several of these clubs are currently occupying places in or around the top of the division so I would urge you to move the Play-offs to the end of July to allow for the participants decided by the Courts.

Your current narrative appears to distract people from the lack of leadership and incompetence shown by your organisation by attempting try to turn people against Derby County by trying to rile people against us by continually bringing up the money owed to HMRC. Unfortunately this does not appear to be having the desired effect and it appears you will be on the wrong side of history.

7 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

No, we need to keep the MP's pressure on Parry at the EFL . Thats the one thing that can force the issue after Morris's invitation to solve the "claims that have not yet been made" issue.

A protest or two at Preston and London EFL offices would not go amiss, the publicity would put pressure on Parry.

Parry is the key. If he turns against Gibson, Derby survive. 

Morris has forced him into making that decision.

Think Parry should be considering his position, the accusations of being given free reign to piss all over the rules is damning imo. Only reason Stoke (selling losses to parent company) and Forest (related party dodgy deals) are not being prosecute(persecuted) is they haven’t finished 1 place above the wrong team. 

As the claims are based on claims they were defrauded due to the actions of a director I believe that director could be held personably liable. 

31 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

The EFL will be on our side in this as they can’t want any other outcome 

Totally agree! They will want this all to go away so they can their cushy lives being paid very well to do actually very little without all this scrutiny.

22 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I don’t doubt that we delayed the submission of our amended accounts as long as possible partly, if not fully, in order to avoid the points being deducted last season but, it doesn’t matter what he THINKS we should have done. We did what we did within the deadlines set by the EFL.

Being really pedantic the (independent) LAP set the first deadline of August 18th and the EFL AGREED an extension. It matters not as both were after the season had started so I agree how he believes we could be at fault baffles me.

45 minutes ago, DerbyRam! said:

In case we do manage to pull off the impossible and survive all this. Can we please add Boro to our official list of rivals? Checking their forum, complete bunch of ***** and *********, hopefully what goes around, comes around. Wonder if they will fail FFP anytime soon?

Allegedly struggling this season and currently sitting 6th. Glasshouses and stones comes to mind.

What all football fans need to ask is do you want all leagues to become bi-annual. We have a year of football then a year of litigation to adjust the placings based on who did what.

This is what is coming if claims such as there are allowed. Feel the EFL might rue their interchangeable fixture list idea this summer as there could be lots of teams involved. 

9 minutes ago, StrawHillRam said:

If he is  a real Derby supporter, then he’ll come out publicly and deny it or say he was paid to say what he said. Otherwise he’s not a real Derby supporter and probably a red in disguise trying to stir it up.

From talking to many Derby friends and colleagues they just don’t get it and most seem to apportion the blame solely in one of 3 camps which are the EFL, Boro/Wycombe or Mel Morris when in reality it’s a mix. 

14 minutes ago, Sinistra ram rousse said:

I am feeling a bit annoyed this morning.   A Derby fan who was interviewed by the journalists from Wycombe has said he would like to apologise to  Middlesborough and Wycombe  on behalf of the Derby fans. Well he doesn't speak for me. I hold the EFL responsible for the Wycombe mess.

The LAP that ruled and gave a deadline for resubmission of accounts are independent of the EFL are they not? An organisation called Sports Resolution or something like that.

That is what makes the claim laughable it wasn’t Derby or the EFL that set the deadline and even with the accounts submitted before the start of the season we would have needed to be charged with the breach and another LAP formed without an agreed sanction. We could have still been waiting for an outcome now!

The one thing I’ve never understood is why we haven’t issued counter claims that these are spurious with no other objective than to delay the administration process which could ultimately lead to substantial losses due to relegation.

A potential bill for several millions should it be found in our favour should be enough for them to consider carefully the merits of their claims.

35 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

The Forest ‘dodge’ needs to be looked at, but we would have breached P&S limits whatever FRS 102 compliant amortisation policy we used. The 9 points was for a significant overspend on net transfer fees and players wages, which no amortisation policy could eventually hide. Everything went on and on because Morris was clearly reluctant to submit any accounts for 2 to 3 years.

The rules are already there to stop this, assets (players) can only be sold to related parties at "Fair Mark Value" which can be determined by the EFL if necessary and retrospectively have their P&S calculations amended.

On 22/01/2022 at 21:37, Dava75 said:

This glass bottle was thrown from the stand above us - when Lawrence scored - it hit the bloke on the row in front of us in the neck and landed by my daughters feet. 

SCUM!

I filed a crime report with Nottinghamshire Police regarding the flares/smoke bombs being throw one of which landed just a couple of metres from me, I will mention this bottle incident when they get back in touch. Also planning on writing to Nottinghamshire County Council who are in charge of issuing the grounds safety certificate. 

Not seen this posted: https://fanbanter.co.uk/report-claims-middlesbrough-and-stoke-city-could-also-receive-points-deduction/

Boro setting a dangerous precedent that could be used against them if true. Their best hope is to bottle it again and finish 7th so they don’t get sued!

3 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

With regards Gibson's statement - like others have said before, what the hell does it have to do with him about the MSD/Mel & HMRC deals. Admins have said they're pretty much in place, Gibson has no right to know the amounts. If he is so keen on knowing those figures, why doesnt he come out with the figure his claim is for or what he would settle for? Looks like he wants to know what others will get so he knows what to ask for. Says it all about the bloke when he claims its a relatively simple task to get us to exit admin. Everyone knows how difficult it was even without his nonsense claim, it is simple now for us to exit admin though if he dropped his claim!

In terms of Mel & the stadium - I thought Mel gets £0 from it? The £20m goes to paying off the MSD loan, so MSD are paid & the new owners owns the stadium? If Mel was happy to accept less, would that not mean we would still owe MSD the difference which would need to be paid for the new owners to own the stadium? Or have I got that all wrong.

As for the EFL, what a load of eaffle. Stating rules, regs, laws yet their own arent upto date. Then stating they need to know the preferred bidder when everyone knows there isnt one until Boro/WW are sorted, have they had their heads in the sand these past weeks or what!

Their statement basically said stop everyone getting angry at us, Mel Morris hasn't lost anything and if you're a tax payer you should be angry at Derby

2 minutes ago, OUFCfan said:

Thanks for this, 1 thing I don't get though, if the claims are as frivolous as most on here seem to say (I genuinely have no idea what they are btw), then why has it put bidders off? Surely they and their lawyers would look at it, know it's no risk and carry on?

Because the EFL run the arbitration process and nobody has confidence in applying even their own regulations correctly. Add in a bit of subjectivity and anything could happen. I told a mate last week that they extended our embargo so we had to start each game with only 9 players and they thought it might be true!