Woodley Ram

18 minutes ago, Rev said:

He seems a bit small fry to be buying us with his own money. 

His company only employs 70 odd people.

IT company, 70 is big for a software company, large profits generated for what they do. He has lots of dosh

13 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Heard the billionaire initials are DT? Apparently left a big job recently and it’s looking for something to tick him over

Not MM then

9 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Byrne's best attribute is crossing to a target man. Fesry's is his ability to drive forward with the ball

I agree, both best as wing backs but agree re attributes 

I think he is a wing back and best in a 3 man defence. Similar to Byrne but quicker 

1 hour ago, The Baron said:

A fair hearing is right for both parties and also the integrity of the game.

 

The automatic points deduction was introduced by the EFL specifically because clubs were abusing administration as a means of gambling trying to get promoted and then stiffing their creditors if things did not work out. In that sense the penalty has worked given the reduction in the number of clubs going into admin since its introduction. 

It’s good of you to come on here and explain.

we had one stupid season and that has resulted in the large debts. That said, others have far bigger debts. For Derby the question is. Without COVID would have Derby gone into administration? If the answer is yes 12 point slam dunk. If the answer is no....then that’s a different issue. The fact that the EFL are allowing some owners to break P&S/FFP rules to ensure a club’s survival cannot not be a requirement for them to do so.

If we have a look at P&S/FFP Reading have killed it with a far bigger overspend than us yet they apparently are looking at a smaller points penalty.

Also the EFL needs to sort out COVID losses, Stokes claim is absurd. There needs to be strict criteria that is audited.

How can Bournemouth not pay for Harry Wilson for 2 years? That’s a gamble if they don’t go up then ...boom

For Derby, Something went very wrong not just in amortisation and FFP but in transparency in general

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Yes.  all true. But Mel is a Ram and the others are not.

I don’t hate Mel, he gambled and lost. I didn’t hear many dissenting voices when we had that mad season of spending. 
 

 Unfortunately it was Mels responsibility to run the club properly and he and Mr Pearce failed to do that.

yes it’s due to those two that we are in this mess but they didn’t set out to do this, but should have been more diligent 

13 hours ago, winktheram said:

Interestingly, Maguire's latest podcast seems to suggest we could have reasonably forseen Covid, as SARS, Ebola and the like have been around so it was I inevitable that a global pandemic would hit and we should have been prepared. And Covid is not a force majure event. The man's a menace. 

 

Yes I heard that. He says that with the other infections we should have known another was around the corner. That is a stupid thing to say He takes a lot of things from ‘lawyers’ and other ‘experts’ he has spoken to and also mention insurance companies not paying out.

There are a few issues with his assumptions ( as that’s why they are). We are not claiming under an insurance policy so that isn’t really relevant, his lawyers etc do not have all the facts, in fact no more than us.

He shows a real lack of understanding and a real dislike for Derby.

49 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

I hear where you're coming from but you attribute actions against the root cause of an incident not the immediate cause or the same thing will happen over and over again in the future as you've never got to the nub of the true reasons behind the issue happening.

Yes if we didn’t have debts we would have been ok I hope, and yes other clubs have bigger debts. If in a normal season we could pay our bills but due to COVID we cannot then that is the reason we re in administration.  

58 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Totally disagree with you. You don't look at the immediate cause when you're doing an investigation you look at the root cause and the root cause for us being in this mess isn't Covid. 

 

I understand where you are coming from but the issue here is did COVID cause us to go bust? 

2 minutes ago, bcnram said:

Oh dear, yes I did, every minute of it, do you have a problem?

Not a problem but obviously at a different stand and saw different things

0-0

18 hours ago, bcnram said:

Allsop  4

Byrne  5

Buchanan  6

Jagielka  7

Davies  7

Shinnie  6

Bird  6

Morrison  7

Knight  6

Jozwiak  7

Lawrence. 5

Did you go to the match?

Well I have just got home and feel a bit deflated. We should have won. Their two goals were preventable, I knew as soon as allsop came out for the ball he had a wrong decision. Never mind at least we got a point. 
 

we struggled with their height today, they had some big strong lads. Our we never gave up, they were a credit to the club. 
If we keep on fighting we will win a few. The distance between us a safety is closing.

crowd were excellent, keep the faith we are staying up

Just take it as a big plus as to what Wayne and Derby are achieving on the field. It’s a compliment no more and he is staying here

17 minutes ago, SouthernRam said:

Not sure if it deserves it’s own thread as it’s probably clickbait pot-stirring, but Rooney is being linked to the Newcastle job.

https://www.sportbible.com/football/news-reactions-exclusives-exclusive-wayne-rooney-on-shortlist-for-newcastle-united-job-20211018

pay off the HMRC bill and he is yours

4 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

I totally agree, it isn't nailed on..

But I will say, if it isn't a success the whole Force Majeure clause needs completing overhauling or abolishing.

It should read: Under clause 4.6.2 a club can appeal a sanction if circumstances are deemed a Force majeur event. A Force majeur event is defined as Godzilla scrapping with Rick Waller causing immeasurable damage to the clubs stadium.

 

Just had a chat with the EFL. They said Force Majeur is anything they want it to be as long as they win.

But seriously, part of the definition of Force majeur is an epidemic so Covid fits. Also have they not allowed clubs to go over the FFP limits because it was an unforeseen event. If they decide to reverse that then next season will start at -12. You cannot have it both ways. 

I agree that HMRC payments or lack of them is an issue. Unless their is a reason for non payment (deferred due to Covid), or we could have got an additional MSD loan or payment plan?

Thinking about it, we have to pay off a lot of the debt (due to administration) so that would bite into our operating profit. 

8 hours ago, Crewton said:

So they're claiming the wage bill (including tax, NICS etc I assume) will be £13.5M until the end of the season? That's 9 months, which would mean the annual wage bill is now £18M - and they think THAT is "staggering" for a Championship club with a turnover in normal times of around £30M????

Have they looked at other teams wage bills? £18M p.a would put us comfortably in the bottom half, and 60% of turnover would probably put us in the bottom 6 for wages/turnover ratio.

What a load of tosh!

£18m for the year seems about right. These aren't normal times but we should be able to fund £13.5m from match day, TV etc over the next 9 months. I would doubt that any club has £10-20m sat in their bank. If they did that isn't the best business model. 

I think proof that DCFC can survive would be a projection of cash flow until the end of the season. They should be able to do that based on current wages etc

Quote

1-1 Lawrence

16 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Yes. In many ways the insurance thing is the opposite. That  Force Majeure exclusion is to protect insurance companies from a wave of claims that could make them insolvent. It is a specific clause written by insurers to protect the insurers themselves. Whether it is being applied fairly is of course a different matter. 

The Force Majeure clause in the EFL Rules is to protect the clubs from suffering further penalties in the event of an insolvency event caused by a Force Majeure event not of their making . It is very specifically written and there is no doubt that as it is written in the EFL rules, COVID is a force majeuere event. Whether it caused Derby's insolvency event is another matter to be decided at the tribunal.

 

 

 

Force majeure covers epidemics.  Its generally intended to include occurrences beyond the reasonable control of Derby and therefore would not cover any negligence by Derby. If we can show that if it was not for Covid we would have continued to operate we should win. Things like the HMRC debt don't help with this. But who is to say that we would not have an arrangement with HMRC to pay it off or that someone would have loaned the money. I think MSD said they would loan more money. 

The fact that others haven't gone into administration should be irrelevant as they will all have increased their debt because of Covid.  The fact that they have owners that can afford the additional debt and we cannot is not a valid reason to reject the appeal.  I can see why we feel that owners should be able to fund the additional £8.5m in the season but should we expect them to fund £20m?

The EFL seemed to have excepted that clubs will break FFP/P&S due to Covid surely that is because they have accepted Covid as something beyond the ability for clubs to predict or plan for (Force Majeure). what is the difference?    

21 hours ago, alexxxxx said:

I'd argue it is as well however I've gone on what Mr maguire was saying on his pod this week.

Insurance companies have not been paying out on force majeure clauses. 

Interesting question about how much a chairman/shareholder should be expected to fund a club. 

I have issues with McGuire. I think with financial things he is good but this is a legal point. The insurance comment is a bit of a red herring. This is not to do with insurance policy or law, and it’s a different business. 

7 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Surely you can in a very broad sense. No one expect their house to burn down but we all (or should) insure against it.

Insurance wouldn’t stop your house from burning down and you would only insure if there was a risk of it happening, for that you would have to know it’s a risk due to it happening to other people. With COVID that’s not the case

14 minutes ago, RammingStone66 said:

I think the Wilson payments are delayed for 2 years. If you don't want clubs running up debts then allowing them to defer payment on players for a few years seems like a silly idea because someone will exploit it eventually

So if we did a deal with PSG, Real Madrid and Barcelona so that we bought a load of their fringe players deferred payment for 3 years with an option for them to be bought back that would be legal? we could play all of them as they would not be loans but would effectively only be paying their wages as they would be bought back for the same cost after 3 years......mad    

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Ok not blaming you Woodley .. whatever your source I think it is very wrong … and most importantly the only big spending year was 2015/16 not 2016/17.

so our big transfer spending days are over 5 years ago.. even though it did give us some legacy issues with high wages for a few years after that.

I wish other clubs would look at our spend as they think we have been tanking it for years which is not true. I think our debt is probably no bigger than others in the Championship and significantly smaller than some (Reading, Stoke etc). They are angry that we sold the stadium for more than a lot of them did and don't understand the amortisation thinking we had been residual values at the end which is not true it was always 0. they think that our overspend/debt is bigger than every ones which is not true.  

Mel gambled and in football terms is not a rich man, I think that in the end he could see his fortune dwindling away. Of course a lot of that would not be accessible.

A lot of misinformation out there.  It is taking the focus from others that should have larger FFP problems. For instance Stoke's Covid write off is ridicules and  haven't Fulham deferred the payment on Wilson so they don't pay anything this year.    

12 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Doh! Well yes then thats much more like it compared to Woodley Rams figures.

 

And of course we shoudln't forget compo for Lampard and Co, plus Rowett too.

Not my figures, but one from a transfer website. It is strange that different websites have different figures. of course these do not include money paid to former managers and money received for former managers such as Lampard. 
 

The one thing it does show is that we had the one big spend year not just for transfer spend but high wages and that was our issue. Both sets of figures show that apart from that one year the spend more or less nets out. 
 

this will all help with the appeal. I have always thought we should appeal but feel more comfortable with the possibility of winning it