AutoWindscreens

When the new kit comes out with blue shorts and red numbers, all will be right with the world.

1 minute ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

I don't think their potential appeal is against our to be re-submitted accounts I think its against the £100k fine. In other words they could appeal today if they wanted.

You're right the appeal would be against the fine, but in order to decide whether to appeal they'd be well-advised to wait for the DC's reasons, which haven't been given yet.

I'm pretty sure that the possibility of points deduction/relegation this season does not come from the accounts which are to be submitted by 18 Aug, but from the possibility of an appeal against the fine.

If the new accounts show a breach of the financial rules then, as others have said, that would surely have to be a new charge.

26 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

You beat me to it!

If I could have said it as succinctly as you, my comment would have been up earlier and you'd have been spared the trouble!

There's still a good possibility that the EFL don't appeal.

They got the judgment yesterday. Presumably they argued for a points deduction, and that is why they had already developed the option of interchangeable fixture lists.

They have the option of an appeal and right now they are thinking of it. If you don't get what you want from a judgment, your first public statement is that you are considering the judgment and considering an appeal. No point in committing yourself either way.

But it doesn't mean that they will appeal, because that will depend on deciding there is a good chance of showing that the DC was too lenient, or got something wrong. When you're talking about punishments, the DC will have a reasonably wide range of possible responses within which the Appeal Panel could not say they were wrong. It may well be that their advice will be that the DC could not really be said to have got it wrong, even if they disagree with it. 

The appeal provisions say: "the Appeal ... shall be limited to a consideration of whether the decision being appealed was in error and the burden of establishing the decision was in error shall rest with the appellant; and ... in the case of appeal against sanction, the grounds are that the original sanction was too severe or too lenient having regard to all the circumstances."

So I actually doubt that in the end the EFL will appeal.

Wishful thinking maybe!

40 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Inconsistent for sure, but there's literally nobody else at the club right now who can do what he can when it clicks. The same folk will endlessly moan about him but bar Bielik, it could be argued that no other player was more instrumental in rescuing us from relegation last season than Tom with his end of season form in a team that couldn't beat an egg.

 

Apt choice of song: "Making Bad Decisions" by the Strokes

12 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

You raaaang???.... ?

Hey! There's a queue, you know? Get in line.

1 hour ago, Anag Ram said:

I think any signings we make should have New on their shirts to remind us in the coming season. 

Like New Cillit Bang in the adverts. 

Can we make it "New Improved"? I think that would make everyone feel better.

3 hours ago, Jubbs said:

They are smart enough to recruit in accordance with the rules. They scout from the Eredivisie for example, fine. Brentford's model will be fine.

Brentford's model will be fine for them in the Prem where they have more money to spend. They are planning to spend big money this season. I have no doubt Brentford are smart enough.

What I mean is it will be much harder for a club at Champioship level to find a cheap (i.e. cheap for a Champ budget) foreign player using stats - if they are cheap it's because they are unknown and if they are unknown they won't have the visa points. It is harder for an imitator now to follow the Brentford model from the Championship.

2 hours ago, angieram said:

I am finding this thread a bit depressing, tbh. 

One of the brightest, no the brightest, parts of our club under Mel's tenure has been the sustained development of our academy and younger players. I think credit goes to the entire team from Mel's investment through Darren Wassall's excellent stewardship and all the coaching and education teams behind our young players. They are almost without exception such rounded young sportsmen who know how to play the game in the right spirit.

I actually take a certain amount of pride in our academy concept and am pleased we have decided to nurture future talent rather than just leaving it to the "big" clubs.

At the very best not having an academy would have given us the money to buy one more Waghorn type player a year, who wouldn't be allowable against FFP, and would give no more guarantee of a return against investment than our current set up. 

But success is everything, so let's rip up all that investment in the future of the game, make several dozen staff redundant and use the money to employ analysts who will buy in a random assortment of strangers that aren’t allowable against FFP and who have no association with our club. What makes you think that would work better? 

Ah, yes, Brentford. Anyone would think they'd just got promoted ( at last.)

Just a final thought. Moor Farm provides some of the very best training facilities in the whole country, which benefits all our teams. We wouldn't be able to afford to keep that going for the first team squad only. No academy, no Moor Farm. 

 

Plus: the Brentford model is now cast in serious doubt by Brexit and the need for work permits. If you find an undiscovered gem in an unsung European club he probably won't have the points for a permit.

2 hours ago, DCFC1388 said:

It said that for the vast majority of the past 18 months we were under an embargo, those 2 signings must have been when we weren't in one.

I read it as saying that the embargo doesn't apply if you have less than 23 senior players. 

Meaning that it doesn't really apply to us for the reasons you've already shown - we are nowhere near 23.

4 hours ago, DCFC1388 said:

With how our season went last year and the lack of goals, I dont think we could really turn our nose up at a proven scorer at this level like Assombalonga. Now i'm not saying we will get him or even be in for him but to say you wouldnt want him baffles me.

I dont understand the whole I dont want players because of their past mistakes or their character, if they improve us what does it matter? Like i've said before, players make mistakes. I watched the Alex Ferguson documentary the other day, he speaks about Cantona when he signed him, class player but was a bad character, he still signed him and he was the catalyst for United being the 90s powerhouse that they became.

I can't resist...

Cantona a bad character??? The very opposite.

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Has anyone ever started gambling on the back of seeing a betting company sponsoring a football team? I mean really?

The liberalisation in general and the football advertising in particular has totally normalised betting in this country. You cannot watch sport without a betting ad showing the lads having a punt and some bantz over their bets or some other fun message about what a great social activity it is. That has made a massive difference.

Betting used to be treated like hard liquor. Then it went the other way, as though it's no more harmful than shandy. See it everywhere, get it anywhere, fun for all the family.

2 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

We're £60 million in debt buddy. I love the idea of us being a fan-owned, break-even outfit but we're a million miles from that right now and how many break even clubs get promoted these days?

What you describe is a lovely ideal but there's a reason no such club exists in this country. Anyway, I feel like I'm pissing on peoples' chips here so I'll tootle off now.

We hear that nobody is up for paying that £60m, and the story is that if Mel wants to find a realistic buyer he'll have to pay down some of the debt himself. If there is a chance of that happening, why not for a supporters' vehicle?

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Any excuse

 

Derbyshire! Duck yeah!

Or should that be,

Derbyshire! Yes me duck?

10 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Ifs, buts and maybes. Have you seen our accounts? Have you digested the sums of money involved in keeping the club afloat? It's not going to be affordable and payments from many would dry up the moment we hit a flat spot anyway. 

If your time on this forum has taught you anything, it ought to have shown that fans are vey quick to turn on the club and its component parts and to have those same fans responsible for the financial upkeep of the club would be to expose the club to unacceptable risk. 

There's also a great deal of difference between clicking a button on a forum poll and stumping up thousands of pounds a year to keep the club afloat. In any case, it seems to me you apportion great value to polls that support your opinions and next to none at all to those that don't. 

It's never going to be an option that a fan owned club runs on a budget requiring yearly payments to keep the club afloat. It could only be on a break even basis - and not a bad thing, surely.

6 hours ago, LeedsCityRam said:

Just an update on this; the FSF Network Manager for Community owned clubs has offered to call me over the next few days to talk through various scenarios around community/fan ownership. I've made some points in the email below but is there anything else people would like answers to? Am happy to raise in the call & report back on here. If so, either reply to this or DM me ?

My email to FSF btw;

Hi Andy,

Saw your contact details on the FSF site & wondered if you could provide some advice

I'm a Derby fan & as you're probably aware, the club is in a difficult financial position currently with the incumbent owner looking to sell asap. Unfortunately this seems to have attracted a number of chancers & charlatans with 2 potential takeovers falling through already due to prospective buyers being unable to provide proof of funds by way of actual bank transfer.

As few of us on the main forum have been discussing the prospect of a fan owned club or at least a club majority owned by the fans & whilst doing some reading on the AFC Wimbledon model, the DonsTrust gave a lot of credit to Supporters Direct for advice given back in 2002 that enabled them to start from scratch & employ the successful model that has brought them back into the League.

I was therefore interested to learn what the framework of a viable fan led buyout could be, particularly given the size of Derby. Unlike AFC Wimbledon, we'd be looking to take on a existing large club with pre-Covid annual turnover expectations of circa £30m & unknown debts although rumoured to be around the £60m mark. I suspect any condition of sale would be paying off a proportion of those debts so the first challenge would be raising the cash from supporters to do this (possibly in the form of a bond rather than seeking external lending)

Any advice you could give would be really appreciated. I'm guessing you may have fielded a few of these from larger clubs from time to time - it'd be nice to actually land one & prove fan ownership can work at the top end of the pyramid!

Nice one.

I'd like to know what different ownership models are working in clubs - do they have details - here and abroad?

And how did the clubs adopt those models - how have fans ended up with the structure. Have they gone through various discussions or is it more a case of putting one proposal out there and asking people to sign up to it?

And do they have any examples of how fans have gone about raising money?

??

36 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

When i saw Autowindscreens i actually thought MM had found a new buyer for a second

I'll let you know more in 48 hours

3 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Giving a vote to someone from a local town (heaven forbid Nottingham or in the Forest “catchment area”) simply because they commute to Pride Park for their job doesn’t help make it a community club. It’s not inconceivable that they have no real interest in football or Derby County specifically and it’s just a job for them.

 

Fine, then they won't vote. It's a model that works well in cooperatives, for example. But it's a bit of a distraction because it's just one example I put forward of how you can change the governance of a business.

The more likely football supporter models are one member one vote and giving a vote to season ticket holders as well.

8 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Why would you give somebody that gets paid by the club (employees) or someone that pays in advance to go to games (season ticket holders)  the same voting rights as someone that has invested in the club?

Because it's one way of making the club a community club that is guided by more than just the power of those with money. That's what the 50+1 rule in Germany is about too. I put them up as other examples of something with the same aim. 

You don't have to have any of those rules I listed above. If you don't have any protections or restrictions and it's one share one vote then you are basically a company with shares, which is another option and a simple way of owning the club. 

4 hours ago, HorsforthRam said:

So, how does even exploring this initiative (beyond discussions on a fans forum) happen?

To find out how many people would be willing to put up some money, I guess you ask for pledges, like a crowdfunder type site. I wouldn't necessarily use one of the existing platforms because they take a significant cut.

But before putting it out to raise pledges the plan needs to be more fully formed.

First step is that there are models of fan ownership out there, in England and Europe.

4 hours ago, HorsforthRam said:

So, how does even exploring this initiative (beyond discussions on a fans forum) happen?

Good question!

I do think this is a good place to start because it's a good forum for different ideas and points of view. 

I'd like to know more about how citizens' assemblies work, because I read  that they have been found very useful in coming up with agreed ideas for intractable problems.

20 hours ago, David said:

The ESL has pushed this back out into discussion, but I just don’t see fan owned clubs being the way forward, not at this level and above anyway.

Let’s be honest here, the owners of those 6 knew exactly what they were doing and they would have known that fans would not have been happy.

What they didn’t know was the severity of the backlash as they are so detached from their clubs and thought they would get away with it.

Listen to the fans, actively engage with them, listen to concerns, frustrations and work with them to move the club forward.

Now I know this is a touchy subject given the position we find ourselves in now, but that’s all football clubs need to run.

Yes we are customers, but we’re more than that.

But on the board? No. It’s just not our place unless we have significant financial investment into the club and whilst that could be potentially raised by a large number of fans, do you want a large number of voices in the boardroom? I think that’s a bad idea myself.

It's not at all unusual for a business to have thousands of owners - like most big public companies. The shareholders collectively have the power to appoint or remove the board of directors, but don't make the day to day decisions, that's for the board.

Nothing necessarily different in a fan owned club. The difference would be in the rules that we agree to be bound by, e.g. 50+1.

We could agree that the board should be regularly elected by the members, or should always have a certain number of fan members.

We could make sure the power stays in the community by having one member one vote for shareholder decisions instead of giving more voting power to those with more shares.

We could agree that season ticket holders get a vote as well as shareholders. 

We could agree that employees of the club are automatically voting members.

There's not much difference from a normal public company except that the ultimate power over the direction of the club remains with the community or with the club and its supporters.

15 minutes ago, AutoWindscreens said:

Yes, there is. You can incorporate a not for profit type company. Like a community interest company (CIC). That would probably open a few doors for different kinds of finance and support. 

The governance question, like how much control do fans get, etc. (e.g. 50 + 1), is a different question. 

Or it could be a co-operative: Co-op

Or a community benefit society: Bencom

8 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Is there a 'not for profit' model, or is that how the 51% 'fan owned' works.? 

Yes, there is. You can incorporate a not for profit type company. Like a community interest company (CIC). That would probably open a few doors for different kinds of finance and support. 

The governance question, like how much control do fans get, etc. (e.g. 50 + 1), is a different question. 

17 minutes ago, mwram1973 said:

would never work, from the way most react on here per game we'd have 7 managers per season.

Depends on the governance and decision making models you choose!

You can start out with wide consultation to work out your constitution and decision makers.

And you're aiming at a structure that has clear decision making responsibilities while giving fans a say.

Maybe you have a football executive or DOF who reports to a fan board. The fan board, chosen from the shareholders, can be elected at regular intervals, or chosen by random ballot, or half and half. Plus some experienced outsiders.