The Baron

Because somebody asked me a question. 

I’m not sure how I’ve made a decent living out of this. Never ask for money from broadcasters (Radio Derby did send me £20 at the end of last year though), all the book royalties have gone to charity, I’ve worked on projects for DCMS in relation to the Fan Led Review unpaid and the profits we made from the live podcast show in Wimbledon were given to the Rochdale defence fund in relation to a hostile takeover of the club. 

...and if it wasn't for you pesky kids I would have gotten away with it. 
 
 

If Morris had decided to not fund the club anymore that is one thing, he could have put the club into administration far earlier. For him to use the taxpayer as a means of funding it instead does not reflect well on him IMO. 

Or a payment plan had been agreed, only for Mel to stop paying again when Covid started?
Quite a number of other possibilities too.

If Morris had decided to not fund the club anymore that is one thing, he could have put the club into administration far earlier. For him to use the taxpayer as a means of funding it instead does not reflect well on him IMO. 

Hi HB
I will try and unpick the different elements.
In respect of the 12 point deduction for going into administration, it seems fair, Wigan were subject to a similar deduction when they went into admin themselves. The claim that Covid was the sole reason for administration is a weak one as (a) why did it not happen to other clubs? and (b) there were already significant sums owed to HMRC prior to Covid. 
For the stadium issue, whilst the rules seem daft, they were still the rules. I'm not qualified to value stadiums, but have spoken to people who are, and so think the club was correctly found not guilty on this issue.  
As far as amortisation is concerned, it's a tricky one. Neither Mel Morris nor Stephen Pearce were the architects of the change to the accounting policy, but they were happy to utilise it and the short term benefits it gave to the club's P&S calculations. 
IMO, I think the new policy was in breach of FRS 102 and reduced losses by about £30m. I have had a discussion with Stephen Pearce in relation to this, and we professionally agreed to disagree. 
It is then the responsibility of those prosecuting to put the case put forward for the EFL at the IDC. The case presented was weak, their expert witness put forward a muddled explanation, and if you lose, as they did, then they should have accepted it with good grace, and not appealed the first ruling. 
As for having an agenda against Derby, I would defend myself on this. I monitor and comment on social media in relation to all clubs in England and Scotland (and Wales) because I'm very boring and have no friends. The aim is to be objective and non-partisan, I have even been known to say positive things about Crystal Palace, who as a Brighton fan, I loathe. I've provided assistance (unpaid) to staff members affected by the administration, contributed £92 to the 'buy a ticket' crowdfunder for DCFC fans, and whilst I fully understand that some people are sick and tired of hearing my voice on t'radio and comments in the written press, the media contact me, not the other way round. More than happy to take on board criticism, although the death threats on social media (not this forum) are not pleasant to receive. 

Can't remember what it was, but if it was, that's even more trivial than ours. 
Shouldn't have posted it to be honest, I've mostly stopped following all this now and don't want to get dragged back into the mess.
It is what it is, we can sit here blaming Mel, EFL, Gibson even @The Baron, but it won't change anything now. We've been punished and look set to start next season with a clean slate.
I do fear for the POF Podcast though, although I'm sure it won't be long until another club steps up and becomes the next financial hot topic.
This last year has been mentally draining, just looking forward to the football now, I'm even looking forward to seeing the xG stats being thrown around, anything but amortisation policies and the suits at the EFL.
 

As for Samuelson, thoroughly unpleasant individual. 

He was trying to sell the club as well and I think there were lots of discussions about who would bail EFL clubs out ... the Government, the EPL or whoever. In Derbys case, in the end none of them did.
But yes it doesnt reflect well on Morris that he put us into admin, that's an understatement.
   

Thanks for spending so much time on here today.
The last couple of years have been horrendous for our fans and particularly for those of us living away from Derby this forum has been a lifeline and means of venting/panicking/laughing/guessing/discussing amortisation and insolvency law. At times the wellbeing of some fans has been concerning.

You spending time answering questions feels as if someone has bothered to appreciate the effect on fans and given a welcome relief from arguing technical points with those who have pontificated with each other, at times very angrily (or boringly) around in circles for many months. 
I know its your specialist area but I think most Derby fans never want to discuss football finances again if this is ever over. Thanks again.

Depends what you class as trivial?
I would class £1m as not being trivial to HMRC but being trivial against a total debt of £29m.
Is it fair to say that you have no idea of the amount and therefore should not be referring to it as 'significant sums' to try and justify a point about Covid not being the primary reason for us being put in administration?
As I've already pointed out, the time this happened is when we are told that MM was expecting Fake Sheikh to also pick up the wage bill, hence why the PAYE debt may have also gone unpaid. 
If Im talking rubbish and you have other information that you can't disclose, just say, I won't be offended.

If Morris had decided to not fund the club anymore that is one thing, he could have put the club into administration far earlier. For him to use the taxpayer as a means of funding it instead does not reflect well on him IMO. 

If Morris had decided to not fund the club anymore that is one thing, he could have put the club into administration far earlier. For him to use the taxpayer as a means of funding it instead does not reflect well on him IMO. 

All taxes. Morris had racked up a £29m total tax creditor when he put the club into administration, over £10m higher than the next largest tax creditor in the Championship. 
 
 

Premier League has enforced financial punishments in relation to Leicester, (Plucky Little) Bournemouth and Fulham. 

That is within the rules. 

So I can’t understand why the EFL were so annoyed with Derby and Mel for selling the Stadium at the time along with our amortisation policy which wasn’t a straight line one .
They bandied the two charges together and we were initially cleared on both .
They won on appeal on our  amortisation policy but didn’t contest Stadium sale I believe.
Many clubs re Boro and Wycombe and Bristol  etc and fans from other clubs said we cheated and called us cheats which was grossly unfair IMO and eventually Quantuma agreed to a 9 point deduction after initially contesting it .
Who knows with just a 12 point deduction for administration we may have survived in the Championship.
I feel Derby County have been hard done by  regarding the EFL 
I assume you mean this 
https://www.premierleague.com/youth/EPPP
 

As part of the deal the EFL agreed with the PL in relation to solidarity payments being a fixed % of PL distributions, the EFL agreed to a raft of measures, including adopting PL P&S rules to replace FFP (and accept EPPP, which is dreadful for EFL clubs in my opinion). Under PL P&S rules it was acceptable from 2016 onwards to allow profits from asset sales to be included in the calculations, which is presumably why Birmingham , Derby, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday and Villa did it almost immediately, and Stoke did it last May, just before the rule was changed following an EFL club vote. 

That is within the rules. 

As part of the deal the EFL agreed with the PL in relation to solidarity payments being a fixed % of PL distributions, the EFL agreed to a raft of measures, including adopting PL P&S rules to replace FFP (and accept EPPP, which is dreadful for EFL clubs in my opinion). Under PL P&S rules it was acceptable from 2016 onwards to allow profits from asset sales to be included in the calculations, which is presumably why Birmingham , Derby, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday and Villa did it almost immediately, and Stoke did it last May, just before the rule was changed following an EFL club vote. 

Hi HB
I will try and unpick the different elements.
In respect of the 12 point deduction for going into administration, it seems fair, Wigan were subject to a similar deduction when they went into admin themselves. The claim that Covid was the sole reason for administration is a weak one as (a) why did it not happen to other clubs? and (b) there were already significant sums owed to HMRC prior to Covid. 
For the stadium issue, whilst the rules seem daft, they were still the rules. I'm not qualified to value stadiums, but have spoken to people who are, and so think the club was correctly found not guilty on this issue.  
As far as amortisation is concerned, it's a tricky one. Neither Mel Morris nor Stephen Pearce were the architects of the change to the accounting policy, but they were happy to utilise it and the short term benefits it gave to the club's P&S calculations. 
IMO, I think the new policy was in breach of FRS 102 and reduced losses by about £30m. I have had a discussion with Stephen Pearce in relation to this, and we professionally agreed to disagree. 
It is then the responsibility of those prosecuting to put the case put forward for the EFL at the IDC. The case presented was weak, their expert witness put forward a muddled explanation, and if you lose, as they did, then they should have accepted it with good grace, and not appealed the first ruling. 
As for having an agenda against Derby, I would defend myself on this. I monitor and comment on social media in relation to all clubs in England and Scotland (and Wales) because I'm very boring and have no friends. The aim is to be objective and non-partisan, I have even been known to say positive things about Crystal Palace, who as a Brighton fan, I loathe. I've provided assistance (unpaid) to staff members affected by the administration, contributed £92 to the 'buy a ticket' crowdfunder for DCFC fans, and whilst I fully understand that some people are sick and tired of hearing my voice on t'radio and comments in the written press, the media contact me, not the other way round. More than happy to take on board criticism, although the death threats on social media (not this forum) are not pleasant to receive. 

Probably, they certainly did when Barcelona and Juventus swapped Arthur and Pjanic for €70m and €58m respectively for players who could best be described as ‘bang average’

Hi HB
I will try and unpick the different elements.
In respect of the 12 point deduction for going into administration, it seems fair, Wigan were subject to a similar deduction when they went into admin themselves. The claim that Covid was the sole reason for administration is a weak one as (a) why did it not happen to other clubs? and (b) there were already significant sums owed to HMRC prior to Covid. 
For the stadium issue, whilst the rules seem daft, they were still the rules. I'm not qualified to value stadiums, but have spoken to people who are, and so think the club was correctly found not guilty on this issue.  
As far as amortisation is concerned, it's a tricky one. Neither Mel Morris nor Stephen Pearce were the architects of the change to the accounting policy, but they were happy to utilise it and the short term benefits it gave to the club's P&S calculations. 
IMO, I think the new policy was in breach of FRS 102 and reduced losses by about £30m. I have had a discussion with Stephen Pearce in relation to this, and we professionally agreed to disagree. 
It is then the responsibility of those prosecuting to put the case put forward for the EFL at the IDC. The case presented was weak, their expert witness put forward a muddled explanation, and if you lose, as they did, then they should have accepted it with good grace, and not appealed the first ruling. 
As for having an agenda against Derby, I would defend myself on this. I monitor and comment on social media in relation to all clubs in England and Scotland (and Wales) because I'm very boring and have no friends. The aim is to be objective and non-partisan, I have even been known to say positive things about Crystal Palace, who as a Brighton fan, I loathe. I've provided assistance (unpaid) to staff members affected by the administration, contributed £92 to the 'buy a ticket' crowdfunder for DCFC fans, and whilst I fully understand that some people are sick and tired of hearing my voice on t'radio and comments in the written press, the media contact me, not the other way round. More than happy to take on board criticism, although the death threats on social media (not this forum) are not pleasant to receive. 

I think you’re overstating my position though.
Whilst have to accept have a high profile in the football finance side of things today, in 2018 that was not the case.
The EFL told me to get stuffed as took the view I was a tin foil hat wearing nobody crank. 
The one thing I got most spectacularly wrong was in relation to Morris.
 
Thought that he was trying to game the system with the unusual policies but never thought that he wasn’t really a fan and would put the club (but not the stadium) into administration. No one of that wealth, who is genuinely a fan, would take such an action.