San Fran Van Rams

2 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Yes they had around 40 million quid of 'loans' in actual fact debt and money spent wiped on takeover.  They would have been up the crapper if not.  Surprise, everyone bends the rules.  Another clubs owner converts any debt to shares to the tune of 13 million a year' I've overspent by 13 million so I'll sell myself shares at no cost and buy my own debt' . One wonders how many shares he can have and why there not worth tuppence each. Others buy 12 million pound players to be paid in full in 3 years thereby hedging there bets and effectively amortising that players total fee in year  3 of the contract, which doesn't sound very straight line.

 

I half feel like combing through each club in the championship, picking out examples like you've called out where there rules have been bent and presenting it to the EFL repeatedly until they notice. Then threaten legal action until the EFL deducts  each club 21 points....

... Sorry, I've gone too far. Such action would obviously be far too petty and I realize we're all trying our best to exit a financially rigged league.... Oh wait

I haven't read the latest in this thread as frankly I don't have the time or inclination. The whole process has been an absolute farce - a witch hunt against an owner; a wider agenda in an attempt to force change up the pyramid; and a corrupt system which bows to those who shout the loudest.

The biggest issue in those whole debacle is that there is an assumption that the LAP made the correct decision about our amortization policy's non-compliance with FRS102. My understanding is that even though the original DC (which included the relevant experts) found the policy to be in compliance (apart from poor disclosure), the LAP then decided to uphold the original particulars even though the LAP had no accounting expertise on it. 

The second biggest issue is that EFL have used the club's financial plight to have it agree to the punishment. The EFL knew full well that we were unable to let the sanctions/appeals decision slip given the existing funding and limited cashflow and the inability to sell the club without that decision agreed upon. The EFL forced us to agree to the decision or face liquidation. To me, this is forcing a false confession and is completely unjust and unfair. 

The third biggest issue is that we have been repeatedly punished for the same perceived mis-demeanor which I'm still yet to see full evidence that we're guilt of - non-compliance with FRS 102. Putting the compliance matter to one side, we've been punished through a strict transfer embargo, an inability to utilize a league wide loan and now a points deduction. The overall points deduction is also a repeated sanction for the same alleged crime given we would have changed our approach and our decisions if we were to know we couldn't use it. (To note, indirectly we've also been punished with administration as the whole EFL debacle forced buyers to pull out a potential acquisition that would have prevented this from happening).

Finally, the fourth biggest issue is that throughout this whole process, Derby's name has been dragged through the mud. Whether its from the EFLs shockingly worded statements, leaks to the national press, or miss/over simplified reporting by the press, Derby County is now a dirty word amongst many a fan - I do not care that we are not liked. I care that we are not liked because of false accusations and an agenda from our governing body which is meant to protect our club and the game we love.

As I've said before, I do not admonish MM of any responsibility. His financial mis-management of Derby is shocking and he should be condemned as one of, if not the, worst owners in our history and the fact he decided to walked away from the steaming pile of poo he created says a lot about the man.

The EFL, however, has done nothing but further punish and cripple the club and is as worthy of as much criticism as our esteemed previous owner. It is an unfit and unjust governance body that needs dismantling and building from the floor up again. 

This stinks of EFL desire to see us punished (relegated or out of existance), one way or the other.

The administrators noted a month or so back (think it was on TalkSport) that they were expecting the EFL discussions to have a conclusion within 3 weeks to allow for a purchase to take place thereafter, and likely concluding in the 1st week of Jan. My guess is that we need it to go through then given cashflow constraints and current runway running out early in 2022. From memory, the administrators have never confirmed they have funding for the season but were confident we'd complete it (indicating my point). 

A purchase will not go through until the points deduction is agreed. We cannot afford for the points deduction decision to slip any further. The EFL, by adjourning our case, have backed us into a corner as we cannot viably continue post January and hence need to accept whatever punishment they throw at us. I.e. the 21 points, full book punishment. 

This is ludicrous, outrageous and unethical behaviour by the EFL. Although what did we expect. Again, not admonishing MM of any blame, but this smacks of a political agenda and DCFC being made an example of.

(Caveat that the above is based on Nixon's article being true)

Not Roos' fault - deflection of Curtis. Defending has been poor so far and Roos already pulled off a couple of class saves

2 hours ago, Malty said:

Yes, this could be a positive. i.e. we have a real chance of winning our appeal and the EFL have to get their own rules changed quickly to stop an avalanche of clubs going into administration and claiming force majeur as well.

they have to act quickly to change their own rules accordingly. Meanwhile Derby could actually “get away with it” and be successful on appeal … then ironically support the EFL when they propose a rule change to stop other teams doing the same.

The other irony is that Derby seem to have been the master of identying loopholes and being successful in exploiting them (with the possible exception of amortisation). This one they could have been successful in almost by chance rather than design!!

I have half a mind that in a week or so’s time our points deduction will change to minus 6 … then it’s a case of arguing the other points deduction ….

… and by the way on the other front we have no obligation to file accounts for the previous company that is now in administration … and therefore the efl can’t very easily prove that we have failed prs. Unless of course we decide to be really nice and present them with revised accounts … but why would we do that?

We might get away with minus 6 only. now wouldn’t that be brilliant!

Thoroughly dishonest and dishonourable, but still brilliant!!
 

55 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

I doubt the efl would drop the requirement for submission of p&s statements. They'll probably have to drop the requirement for submitting accounts to CH. 

I was going to ask how accurate that bolded statement is... is it anywhere in the rules that clubs that go into admin don't have to submit P&S filings to the EFL? And if there is, isn't there a penalty for not doing so (i.e. transfer embargo)? 

I'd also understood that we have submitted the accounts for the requested period back in August - @Malty, are you referring to the seasons yet to be submitted which could result in additional sanctions?

I'd be hugely surprised if we don't have to submit accounts, both for the non-linear amortization period and the subsequent ones which aren't yet due.

44 minutes ago, mike93rh said:

As someone who's of the opinion Mel is the sole cause of this mess, and yes the EFL were ✨less✨ than helpful in the handling/acceptance of our accounts etc, I think those responses are fair. 

Although they do keep banging on about the need to move away from a beneficiary model of ownership.. which lets not forget has been allowed to become so commonplace under their own stewardship. Stinks of the Tories saying we have to restore our country to former glory etc etc every election, despite having been in power for 11 years. 

I completely disagree. Their response only strengthens my view that EFL is completely incompetent.

Firstly  - multiple occasions they've dodged questions and fall back on an argument that the current and potential future punishments seek to maintain the 'integrity' of the league. bullpoo. How is the integrity of the league being maintained when we're being forced to play a makeshift team full of academy rookies and retired pros? Its a minor miracle Rooney is doing the job he's doing. 

They completely disregard that the club has already been penalized to the point of extinction, and are still pushing for further sanctions which will only to serve to damage the supporters, the local community, and if we're lucky, new owners. The club is on its knees and all they can talk about is maintaining league integrity because 'its what the rules say' - they don't seem to grasp the issue that the rules are not fit for purpose in the first place. They also completely miss the point that our suspended 3 point penalty (for paying players 22 days late) was completely out of whack with what they agreed for Sheff Weds (and other clubs have got off scott free for the same offense in the past).

Also, this whole 'its the benefactor model which is wrong' cr@p needs to end. the EFL and its member clubs are in this financial predicament because the EFL are incompetent commercially, cannot negotiate a proper broadcasting deal, and have bent over and presented themselves to the EPL to take full advantage of. More regulations, such as the cost controls they're talking about, will only serve to broaden the gap between the EPL and EFL. Football either needs to stop being run as a business, or you let those who understand business run the football. You can't go either way.

22 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

ESL, if onlythey could have got away with it, you can bet your bottom billion dollar they would have  gone ahead with it and have the bottom feeders slug it out with the championship

I agree - the ESL could actually save traditional football... the basis of it (only a select few clubs able to compete at the highest level) is pretty much here already given the structure and revenues of the PL and EFL. European soccer (and its beginning with the Prem) is trending towards US sports with a top division that never changes, and feeder clubs from below. This is what the execs from the top PL clubs want as it keeps their revenue streams constant and has very little risk. If it doesn't happen explicitly, it'll continue implicitly, encouraging wealthy benefactors to roll the dice with their club's future. 

Small clubs cannot compete at the upper echelons of the PL consistently without a) a large, global fan base (see Man Utd, Liverpool) which generates huge revenues, or b) incredibly wealthy benefactors who want to use it to improve their image (see Man City, Chelsea). 

There are so many problems with football today. Transfer fees are a crazy concept, agents fees even more so. TV money drives revenues but is negotiated in a vacuum, with EFL TV negotiations seemingly a take what you're given exercise. Wages are completely skewed at the top of the game and set unrealistic expectations across the rest. Academies strip talent from smaller clubs for a pittance of what those players will be worth in the future. Corruption is rife (see UEFA, FIFA, match fixing... and you don't think it happens at the smaller less public bodies????). Local fans in the stadium are no longer the most important thing big club owners need to look after. Its those who sit in front of tellies from across the Atlantic who have a fantasy team to manage. 

Tough loss to take although Sheff Utd were for me looking more likely to score for the majority of the game. Still, we played some good football and I don't think I've seen a Derby side so 'in it together'. As others have said, 9 points from safety is still doable, just need to start collecting these points we're losing in final minutes of games. Fine margins when you're at either end of the table, just that this end has livelihoods on the line.

What's Sharp's beef with the Derby fans? No need to be such a tool at the end

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

That was the sale price booked in the 2017/18 accounts, not a revaluation for accounting purposes. If it's not been paid in full, it's a debt owing to the club.

Do we know whether the amount was ever paid in full? I'd assume it was although given the sale was assumingly for FFP purposes as opposed to helping with cashflow, can we live in hope this debt is still an asset for club? Perhaps this is why Mel didn't put the company owning the stadium into admin too... 

At. Straws. Clutching etc. etc.

1 hour ago, Carl Sagan said:

I presume this is them?

Does every club have as many different supporters groups, organizations, initiatives and trusts as us? 

This group have already asked RamsTrust to step aside and let administrators find a buyer. 

1 hour ago, Charlotte Ram said:

Raising the money to purchase the club is only half the battle, the other half is having enough cash for working capital to finance ongoing operations for at least 12 months and also to reach an agreement with the creditors. I think the HMRC could be convinced to drop their claim if it was a supporter group taking over, also the EFL would take a more sympathetic attitude to football debts.

So here would be my thoughts and actions

1. Nominate a core of people with business and financial experience to reach out to the administrator to get sight of the books, there will already be a data room as the club have had a number of potential purchasers over the past months, creditor situation is straight forward as those numbers will be in the hands of the administrator. 

2. After going through the numbers prepare a business plan laying out cash forecast requirements for purchase and ongoing trading.

3. Having identified total cash required  open a subscription for people to buy shares in the club minimum £50 per share total  initial offering say 1 million shares, even the poorest fan could afford 1 share, the most well off 100 shares plus so there would be a good distribution amongst the fan base, the money would not be collected unless any offer for the club was accepted and enough promises of cash made.

It would be a simple process but the execution would depend on getting a good deal on the purchase price and a good response on the share offering.

 

This sounds like a great approach. 

Can mods help get a thread started and pinned (or propose an alternative solution) to help identify those who want to be involved and to get this started please?

A thought. Even if we as supporters cannot muster enough to invoke a full acquisition, can we push for at least a sizeable investment which gives us a seat at the decision making table? 

Not sure how palatable it'll be for new investors not to have full control, but could reduce the amount needed to purchase/ pay off the debt which could be a huge stumbling block for any interested party.

15 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

I certainly do - draft roadmap at bottom of this post. The first obstacle is getting a group of fans on this forum to come together, discuss timings to the actions we agree & different approaches to the challenge. Much though I hate Zoom/Teams calls after the past 18 months, that seems as good a method as any of getting people from disparate locations into 'one room'. The added complication is Ramstrust seemingly not interested in making a bid but that could be discussed also - the impetus needs to come from somewhere & no reason why it couldn't be this forum.

 

Let's start with point one then - the 73 forum members who have said yes in the poll. 

Can we get a separate forum channel or something set up to get the discussions going?

Probably need to assign roles and get a call in asap to get the ball rolling.

Don't understand why people are just shooting this idea down. 

Raising sufficient funds to pay the debts is the big issue here, followed by addressing the most expensive outgoings. Governance etc. can be sorted with a common sense approach. 

I'm keen to support a fan owned model as much as I can. @LeedsCityRam do you have a view as to the roadmap needed over the next few weeks to get us in a position to do it?

4 hours ago, Coconut's Beard said:

In the scenario some posters ran with MSD would become owners of Derby.

Do you think the owner of one club can simply lend money to another - not in a business transaction connected to a player sale but as a direct contribution to their running costs - without there being a conflict of interest? That's what people were suggesting!

I'd be flabbergasted if that was the case. 

I see what you mean but I'm not sure what rule or law there is against that unless it's a specific EFL one. Intercompany loans are common.

11 hours ago, Coconut's Beard said:

What about the loans MSD have with other clubs? Have I missed the post where someone explains how we'd get around them not being allowed to own a club when they've got money sitting around helping to fund others, or are people just wilfully ignoring reality to come up with a fantasy scenario where we don't end up in administration?

Clubs will have all kinds of loans from the same bank, investor etc. Only an ownership interest would result in a conflict I'd have thought. I'm not aware MSD own any interest in other clubs. 

12 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Here is the Companies House information about "charges" on the club:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00049139/charges/xZUaacc51B9bb9w2aEHeJzhqCLg

MSD hold the only two charges (first two on the list), one for Pride Park and one for Moor Farm. As @Charlotte Rampoints out in the Mel vs Dell thread, the other charge was held by Barclays Bank and paid in full on 14th September. If you follow the link this is the fourth item. 

I think this means what happens to the stadium and training ground is now up to MSD. But, given the DCFC Official Statement went out of its way to mention how helpful MSD had been, we can also surmise MSD have a plan, and perhaps their additional financing was to pay off Barclays just before going into admin. 

It was odd that none of this seemed to be mentioned by Maguire on the Radio Derby phone in, but what he did get right was that if (and when?) administration is entered into, no one can buy the club for 28 days as one of the functions of administration is to protect the club from that happening too quickly. 

The timing is so odd in satisfying the Barclays charge. Only reason i can think of is that it makes it easier for MSD to take control of the stadium and Moor Farm. Perhaps it was more palatable for Mel to transfer these assets to MSD this way as opposed to selling it to them out right. Doesn't make a lot of sense in my mind unless MSD expect to buy the club. Even then, I keep coming back to the question as to why MSD didn't just buy the club from Mel as opposed to letting it get into this mess. Assume it's cheaper for them to do it this way and they've just had Mel's pants down.

You mention their additional financing. Did MSD provide additional funding recently?

In case of interest, here is the charge document in relation to the MSD loan on the stadium https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11420393/filing-history/MzI3NTA4MjQ4OWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

And here is the one on the training grounds

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00049139/filing-history/MzI4MDU3NTg5MmFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

7 minutes ago, Charlotte Ram said:

There is something super weird about this weeks events;

1 why pay off Barclays if you are going into administration, that does not make sense UNLESS it was Dell that paid off Barclays as the bank also has a charge on the stadium etc, this clears the way for Dell to be in sole  charge of all the assets.

2. Why on earth are Pinsents being appointed the administrators? They are a magic circle outfit and an insolvency this size is really small for them

3. The fake sheiks lawyers were Pinsents

We have to wait 28 days before any potential buyer is flushed out but my guess is there is one.

Interesting on Barclays being paid back. Where did you get that info? Completely agree it would be strange to pay them off if admin was planned.

Pinsent link is probably a long shot, but gives hope. Any buying firm would have seen the run rate and the growing debt and could have seen this coming so it's a distinct possibility a buyer is waiting in the wings.

24 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I think it is this:

all Mel's football assets are owned by companies in the same overall group as the club

MSD has security over all of those companies' assets

unlikely Mel has personally given any charges but he may personally have guaranteed some of the bank debt

this means MSD has the power to appoint an administrator, who could carry on the business or sell the assets. MSD also has the power to take possession of any of those assets, and sell them, but not if an administrator is in place (eg one appointed by the club)

the statement of an intention to go into administration is a legal requirement - it's not specific to this case.

The praise of MSD in the statement looks odd, as you say. Maybe it means there might just be some cunning plan to avoid administration. Here's hoping 

The MSD link is interesting. There's a link in another thread to an article about a similar loan to Sunderland which was secured against club assets.

If the club transfers to MSD in the event the club defaults on the loan, perhaps this is a cheaper way for MSD to take control. I don't understand why the statement was so complimentary of MSD if this is the case, unless they had a hand in writing it as a way of getting fans onside early. 

It does seem there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. We're not formally in admin yet and it does seem that MSD will ultimately make that decision.

Isn't the stadium a community asset or something that protects it status?

4 hours ago, David said:

How many clubs at this level or above have shown to be running successfully with this model?

You can argue that doesn't matter and we could be the example, the club to follow, but having been a part of this fan base for the best part of say 30 years, I just can't see it.

There is no factual evidence I can provide, it's just my opinion and to be honest, I don't see it ever being voted through by the clubs anyway.

German clubs have been run as not for profit for a number of years now, it's the culture over there, where as the Premier League is seen as a huge pay day which is why the Championship is in the mess it is. 

The likes of Abramovich would pack his bags which the Premier League do not want as it would have an impact on their cushty wages.

The Government would have to overrule them, but this won't ever happen as it funds the HMRC Christmas party.

Completely agree that is the riches of the prem which make it extremely difficult for clubs below to adopt a partially fan owned structure.

However, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be. The Prem is what is wrecking English football and our pyramid. It will turn into a US type league at some point soon with franchise clubs who can't get relegated and the rest left to fend for themselves, probably much more like football was pre Premier league. 

8 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

You're up ending UK company law. 

The Board is appointed by and acts primarily for the owners, ie shareholders. 

Whilst nowadays, the companies act does require directors to CONSIDER the impact of their decisions on other stakeholders (employees, local area etc), there is no legal requirement to give anyone priority over shareholders. 

 

To get to the sort of structure you've described would, I think, need a different legal ownership model, like a Trust. Trouble with that is that trusts typically can't access financial markets easily and won't be attractive to rich benefactors as it's not so easy to limit liability. 

And I think this is exactly why football is broken. It governed as a business. It shouldn't be subject to the same rules as private companies who have little public utility. Football clubs are more like local infrastructure and need protecting on behalf of the communities they are so vital for. 

It'll take a wide reaching change with new regs and agreement from premiership clubs for fan ownership and for boards to run clubs in the interests of fans as opposed to their millionaire shareholders but I'm starting to think it's the only option.

I saw a post on Twitter earlier calling into question the Board and the fact it consisted of Mel as owner and chair, Pearce as the CEO and ultimately Mel's lackey, and Roy McFarland as an ex player and kind of fan representative. The premise being that the Derby board wasn't strong or experienced enough to properly run the club with an inability to challenge the decisions being made to ensure they were being done in the best and long term interests of the club and it's supporter base. 

Football is no longer a sport but a business and fans are not always front and center of club owner, Board, or senior management's thoughts. The promise of riches is. This is the disconnect we're now seeing and which ultimately is causing the strife at Derby, and has caused the myriad of issues at other clubs in the EFL.

One way to potentially solve this is by improving board governance. Ensuring there are independent directors appointed with veto voting rights that have a duty to act in the best interests of supporters, but are experienced and knowledgeable enough to understand the business risks associated with the decisions being made and the ability to challenge and push back as needed. 

I'm not saying that this would have solved all issues. But, given the problems with Sam Rush, the seeming ineptitude of Pearce (or his complete inability to stand up to his boss) and the gambling without consequence of Mel Morris, it may lessened the likelihood of administration.

We need to learn from history and do what we can to stop it happening again, or stop it  from happening to others. 

2 hours ago, desirelines said:

I love the idea. But in the hyper-capitalistic world of football, it would probably get us no closer to being a Premier League club (if that’s the ultimate aim of Derby County) 

I'm starting to wonder whether that is really the aim or if the aim should be to have a sustainable club which plays good football week to week? 

Supporting a football club is unlike anything I can think of. It's tribal. It's a romance. It's a rollercoaster of emotions. It's the thing you have no control over yet yearn for it do the best it possibly can, and shout as loudly as you can to 'help' it do that. 

Ive got to the point that all I want is to be able watch Derby be competitive in the league it is in. Score goals. Play some good looking football. Show passion for badge. 

The current structure of the premier and English football League is so utterly broken that's its untenable to compete in the top league without a billionaire backer who wants to use it as a vanity project. This is now impacting the second tier to the point where it's getting to be the same. You can't compete without rolling the dice and spending above your means. 

As many others have said. Football as we know it is dying. The European Super League will go ahead at some point in the future as soon as fans realize the league pyramid we love isn't a pyramid at all and relegation will only impact those clubs who aren't being funded by billionaires.