Woodley Ram
-
Posts
3,606 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Woodley Ram
-
-
1 minute ago, Caerphilly Ram said:
Simon Jordan saying on TalkSPORT now that Admins have misread the room, approach now is to get in a room with Gibson and work out what he wants. Says it’s not as high as £40m based on conversations he’s had (with Gibson?) and that figure came from elsewhere, also saying the issue is born from player acquisitions relating to our amortisation, we signed players he wanted essentially. Seems like Derby fans are bombarding TalkSPORT with messages this morning, Jordan saying the only solution is to pay Gibson something and that Morris might need to come back to the party to help.
Sort of slating Morris and the admin. Can’t keep up to summarise it all, worth people listening to if and when it gets put online later. He’s not saying everything we want to hear of course but good to hear more national coverage and discussion.They are on about Waghorn
-
12 minutes ago, The Baron said:
Mel could come to the rescue, put the stadium co into administration and underwrite the claims from Boro and Wycombe. If those claims are as certain to fail as some believe then it won't cost MM much, Quantuma have a much more attractive package to sell to a PB, at a price which will increase the chances of unsecured creditors getting a 25% payout and therefore avoiding a further points penalty, which again helps in terms of the price.
He could indeed underwrite the claims by taking out insurance to cover the potential liability. From the outside it looks like the claims will fail, but we have not seen the details. Am I right in thinking the administrators have the power to sell the stadium anyway? Yes it would be good if he could.
do you get the feeling that Mel’s money has taken a tumble, hence the administration etc?
notwithstanding your post there are a couple of other issues
1, Are the claims ‘football related debt’, if fact should they be classed as a debt?
2, I am thinking wider here. This must not happen to anyone else so we need an independent regulator, things need to be more transparent, independent and quicker. I deal with regulators for a living and the EFL rules are so badly written you could drive a bus through them as Mel and others have done or tried to.
-
1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:
I don't think that is what it said?
"Middlesbrough FC commenced its claims against the Club over 12 months ago in arbitration proceedings, the framework for which is set out in EFL Regulations. The EFL is not a party to those proceedings and nor does it have a role in determining the outcome of them. As the arbitration proceedings are private and confidential, we are unable to provide any further detail. "
Commenced them. That was when they were thrown out by the LAP. Doesn't say they are continuing.
Isn’t that what I said ?
-
37 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:
Where did it say that?
However straightforward it might be to deal with the claims after admin I can't see anyone risking it. They need to be dealt with first.
How can the EFL be made to be 'flexible' with their policies?!
Quoted by the EFL
-
12 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:
I agree with the last sentence.
EFl were saying only last few days they couldn't intervene in Boro and Wycombe issue. Now it seems they are. What took them so long?
I don't agree that anyone can jus make any old claims up. The sort of thing brings football into disrepute. The Wycombe guy if anything is worse than Gibson which is saying something.
You can make any claim in any court, if it’s tosh then it gets thrown out. Gibsons is tosh so should be thrown out
-
17 minutes ago, Indy said:
No. Gibson is wrong.
He tried this argument to insert Boro into the stadium valuation case and the LAP finding was that there definitely wasn’t a direct causal link between our finances and their failure. He’s putting forward the same case. Just because the money he’s moaning about us having is from our amortisation rather than stadium sale, he’s still claiming our extra finance = the reason Boro missed out, which has been disallowed.
So - no culpability. And that’s before we consider the fantasy calculations he’s used to determine their loss.
Gibson has the right to make whatever claim he wants too. From the EFL statement it’s has been going down the arbitration route (not court as insolvency rules don’t allow it) for 12 months. I think the claim is tosh but he has the right to make it and I don’t understand why it hasn’t been sorted or the EFL wasn’t involved earlier.
anything to do with Villa or anyone else is irrelevant. It about Middlesbrough and Wycombe. As Wellington once said publish and be damned. Publish the claims, let’s see what they have.
re the EFL they need to agree a consistent story as they keep getting it wrong. Independent Regulator please sports minister
-
1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:
And Gibson has sued him before over Ziege.
Ziege is what is being used as the stated case for why the claims are footballing debt. The EFL rules include transfers but there are two issues with the Ziege. 1, it’s not a transfer. 2, it’s not a proven debt.
it’s the first I have heard that Middlesbrough started to go down the arbitration route 12 months ago. If so why don’t we have a conclusion yet and why haven’t the EFL got involved earlier.
re the takeover I don’t see why anyone in their right minds would agree to pay a potential future debt that hasn’t proved to be a debt. However this is a red herring if the preferred bidder takes over the club and Derby incur a debt as owners then they are liable.
i would love to see the details of the claims and Derbys response.
this is easy to clear up, let the club be bought and then settle the issue at arbitration. The claims should not be a reason for stopping the takeover.
re the EFL, they don’t help themselves with mixed messages such as we have met 2 owners, no we haven’t ……..also they need to accept that the current issues are a collateral effect from their dictate’s.
we really need an independent and professionally staffed regulator
-
It’s interesting reading posts between other forums, this forum and Twitter. Some is very informative and most tosh. I love the way people take a snapshot of a post and construct a whole story around it.
so in the last 5 minutes I have seen a Middlesbrough post saying Buying Waghorn and him scoring 5 goals was cheating as it took us above FFP. Not withstanding that if we were under for the 3 year period but over for the one year it would have meant nothing.
then a Bristol one which says that Wycombe have a case as we should have put in our accounts and would have got the points last season. Incorrect the accounts pre EFL appeal would have been fine for FFP. They were submitted and over the FFP limit after the appeal so we would never have had points deducted last season.
I do find it funny how we are cheats but Birmingham, QPR, Reading et al are not.
for our forum we still have -expletive that seem to blame the EFL before Mel. Mel put use in this position, the EFL are just being vindictive and as transparent as a brick wall.
-
Twitter
-
I understand why the EFL would want us to show that we have the funds to continue but I would have thought that a simple acknowledgment of this from the preferred bidder would have placated them.
i don’t understand the Wycombe/Middlesbrough thing. They have not started the process of going to court (as they cannot under Insolvency rules) and they have not asked the EFL for arbitration. Therefore I don’t see how it can be seen as a debt.
i think the rumour of the Administration trying to circumvent the rules re leaving administration has to be false as that would be stupid. I’m sure their legal stance is likely to be around Wycombe and Middlesbrough. Unless they are trying to get HMRC to be classified as a lessor creditor so that they only get 25%.
mel didn’t play with a straight bat and I was hoping that we would from now on
-
-
1 hour ago, Mucker1884 said:
Ooh! Good on her!
Any relation...? ?
awesome
-
8 hours ago, IslandExile said:
We need to raise it by coffee break Monday morning if we don't want to lose any more players before they're sold off for peanuts by the Administrators.
agree ASAP, I would be surprised if someone didnt go for Lawrence, last year of contract, biggest earner, what would you offer £100-£500k?
-
Somehow we need to raise £7m by the end of the month, the only way is by the preferred bidder putting £7m into a bank account.
It is clear that the EFL want us relegated but remember it was Mel and Pearce that put us in this position.
We cannot do anything about the EFL in the short term so the Admins need to concentrate on the preferred bidder putting £7m in a bank account.
I don’t understand the EFL stance on Middlesbrough and Wycombe as neither have applied to court to sue us or asked to go down the arbitration route.
The EFL issue is not just about us, it’s about everyone. The Government need to appoint an independent regulator (the same as banking, insurance, energy etc) to oversee the industry of sport, particularly in football it has been shown that they cannot regulate themselves. All of those wanting covid deductions to satisfy FFP will want independent and transparent decisions from the EFL are they likely to have that.
I read on twitter (so probably not true) that the EFL only allowed Derby and Reading 5 mil for covid losses, which if true would leave a lot 0f clubs in major problems
2 hours ago, Ramarena said:I think it helps to look at the punishments we’ve received from the EFL
- We’ve been under embargo for around two years.
- We’ve had 21 points deducted.
- We’re potentially on the verge of liquidation, despite having 3 buyers waiting in the wings.
- We’ve had a fresh embargo this window.
- We are now selling and releasing players for pittance.
And still they refuse to remove theIr boot from our clubs throat.
What’s next?
-
-
1-1 Knight
-
11 minutes ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:
Does anybody actually hand on heart think we'll have a preferred bidder today?
No but there is always tomorrow........
-
23 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:
Article in the Times say Rooney Is confident prefered bidder named in 24 hors (48 hours divided by 2).
Sources close to told the Times expect longer (48 hours)
Boro and Wycombe major stumbling block.
Nothing new, same poo, another 48 hours
sounds like a TV programme there, doubt if Keifer would want it?
-
On 10/01/2022 at 15:52, TheHomunculusLives said:
I'd sell Buchanan and Sibley if decent offers come in, and let Baldock and Marshall go so we can bring in new faces in squad areas where we need more bodies.
Oooo close…..but no cigar
-
50 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:
Every club is entitled to apply deductions to their P&S calculations as a result of Covid (ie lost gate revenue).
However, some clubs have included impairment as a Covid cost. This essentially is a way to reduce amortisation costs in future periods. They claim as a result of Covid, they were either unable to sell or sold players below what they otherwise could have done. Stoke definitely did this, I'm not sure who else.Hi yes I understand that, it would be good to understand what Derby claimed for the finalFFP (covid) year. Was our figure something like -17m and -15 allowed for covid so -2m in reality
-
10 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:
We failed 3 periods. Only one included the Covid season, a period in which we exceeded the limits by under £2m. This is normally worth a 3 point deduction.
Was the third year higher and then negated by covid losses? If so and it should then that will need to be the standard for all clubs regarding covid losses.
-
1 minute ago, Sparkle said:
I think they have a £12 million offer from Brentford for Johnson on the table ( they want £20 million) so they at least have an option to get money in unlike other clubs but then again they have so many players it’s nuts. I wouldn’t count on the league looking into inter club transfers to much as our friends at Watford have just again signed a centre half from you guessed it Udinesse for either a loan or undisclosed, yet nothing seems to happen on that front.
Very much doubt they will get it all upfront. The max up front will maybe half, perhaps less?
-
8 minutes ago, Sparkle said:
I’d say Cardiff will be extremely close as well !
Most without parachute payments will be close. The newspapers focus on the gross amounts but they will all have a significant amount deducted due to Covid.
i find it interesting that they rightly had a go at the amortisation and also the appeal against the administration penalty (which they were wrong) but they do doing (or talking about) the same. Reducing player values, including potential transfer values in covid reductions and of course the call to be lenient or even change FFP.
The EFL have a difficult task and one of their own making. If you change FFP or make it more lenient what will those that have already do, as most have been relegated and been under embargo and strict business plans. These have cost them millions. What do they do if they leave FFP as is and they have a number of bigger clubs in trouble.
For me they have to be strict with covid deductions, it should only be for attendance, hospitality and the collateral from that. That also needs to be netted off with the money given by the EFL and Prem.
-
11 minutes ago, rammieib said:
Lets not forget we are supposed to pay Lech Poznan anywhere between 1 and 2 Million next month. They will know about that but whether we have it or not is a different question - surely to have that money relies on the new buyers to come in.
The only caveat for me is any incoming funds from player sales made in the past years.
That’s ok my predicted sale blue of Kamil is £50m using the Bristol forumula ooo la la
The Administration Thread
in Derby County Forum
Posted
The Insolvency Laws do not allow Wycombe to go to court without the agreement of the administrators or Court agreement. I doubt if either will approve that