vonwright

So for all this EFL talk of the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims not being the problem... turns out the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims are the problem.

So for all this EFL talk of the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims not being the problem... turns out the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims are the problem.

Sounds like the only focus right now needs to be on the 2 parasites. Loud and clear..why won't the EFL call out they are not football creditors..this needs to be focused fully on the EFL as in reality nothing else matters right now, this is stalling the takeover.
 

Sometimes I think it matters more because of what's going on elsewhere in the world. What should be our sanctuary from the stresses of life is turning into one of them.
Heartbreaking.

It's possible we approached them with the suggestion? We are the ones who are desperate for cash.

And presumably told the EFL back in January when Rooney was thinking he'd bring players in.
And the EFL just went "naw" as if that was the end of it.

The letter is fine. You can’t expect a lengthy letter covering the whole range of possible remedies. You don’t need to slate everything.

'Look Granny no one wants to see you out of hospital more than me, but if you are that sick then you won't be wanting those fancy chocolates, will you? So I'll just take them and be on my way.'

Yep and it's irrelevant anyway. The administrators need to get us sold, and in their view letting our few remaining assets go for a fraction of their value makes no sense, and makes a sale less likely. The EFL has already punished us for breaking the rules. Do people really want the EFL to be able to mandate sales as an additional punishment? In what circumstances? And if not: either buy the club yourself, or mind your own business. 

Yep and it's irrelevant anyway. The administrators need to get us sold, and in their view letting our few remaining assets go for a fraction of their value makes no sense, and makes a sale less likely. The EFL has already punished us for breaking the rules. Do people really want the EFL to be able to mandate sales as an additional punishment? In what circumstances? And if not: either buy the club yourself, or mind your own business. 

'Look Granny no one wants to see you out of hospital more than me, but if you are that sick then you won't be wanting those fancy chocolates, will you? So I'll just take them and be on my way.'

Yep and it's irrelevant anyway. The administrators need to get us sold, and in their view letting our few remaining assets go for a fraction of their value makes no sense, and makes a sale less likely. The EFL has already punished us for breaking the rules. Do people really want the EFL to be able to mandate sales as an additional punishment? In what circumstances? And if not: either buy the club yourself, or mind your own business. 

'Look Granny no one wants to see you out of hospital more than me, but if you are that sick then you won't be wanting those fancy chocolates, will you? So I'll just take them and be on my way.'

I think Lawrence and bielik are the only big earners left?
Some others probably on "decent" championship money, everyone else youth salary or EFL mandated £4.5k per week.
 

'Look Granny no one wants to see you out of hospital more than me, but if you are that sick then you won't be wanting those fancy chocolates, will you? So I'll just take them and be on my way.'

Another one hiding behind "It's all really complicated, don't try to understand it!"
I don't think the Wycombe claim is particularly complicated. I don't think there are "multiple reasons", I think both their claim and Middlesbrough's claim boil down to the same thing: if a club was found guilty of P+S breaches in season X, can another club claim damages for supposed financial losses 'caused' by those breaches, on top of the agreed points penalties imposed by the EFL? And then the relevant questions include how you'd quantify those losses, how you'd prove the P+S breach caused the losses, and so on, which I think will be very hard for Wycombe and Middlesbrough to do (and hard for the EFL to support). But let's get it all out in the open, and stop this "It's all very complicated but we aren't the hold up here, it's all Derby's fault!"

Correct: 17/18-20/21 was just under £2m overspend

The hilarious thing would've been, if they'd decided to immediately swap us and Wycombe between leagues after we submitted the accounts (with the 1-week extension), presumably the games we'd both played would have been expunged and additional games would have had to be played in their place. That would have cost 'Boro the point they got against in the 4th game of the season, and move them outside of the playoffs...

Another one hiding behind "It's all really complicated, don't try to understand it!"
I don't think the Wycombe claim is particularly complicated. I don't think there are "multiple reasons", I think both their claim and Middlesbrough's claim boil down to the same thing: if a club was found guilty of P+S breaches in season X, can another club claim damages for supposed financial losses 'caused' by those breaches, on top of the agreed points penalties imposed by the EFL? And then the relevant questions include how you'd quantify those losses, how you'd prove the P+S breach caused the losses, and so on, which I think will be very hard for Wycombe and Middlesbrough to do (and hard for the EFL to support). But let's get it all out in the open, and stop this "It's all very complicated but we aren't the hold up here, it's all Derby's fault!"

Another one hiding behind "It's all really complicated, don't try to understand it!"
I don't think the Wycombe claim is particularly complicated. I don't think there are "multiple reasons", I think both their claim and Middlesbrough's claim boil down to the same thing: if a club was found guilty of P+S breaches in season X, can another club claim damages for supposed financial losses 'caused' by those breaches, on top of the agreed points penalties imposed by the EFL? And then the relevant questions include how you'd quantify those losses, how you'd prove the P+S breach caused the losses, and so on, which I think will be very hard for Wycombe and Middlesbrough to do (and hard for the EFL to support). But let's get it all out in the open, and stop this "It's all very complicated but we aren't the hold up here, it's all Derby's fault!"

Another one hiding behind "It's all really complicated, don't try to understand it!"
I don't think the Wycombe claim is particularly complicated. I don't think there are "multiple reasons", I think both their claim and Middlesbrough's claim boil down to the same thing: if a club was found guilty of P+S breaches in season X, can another club claim damages for supposed financial losses 'caused' by those breaches, on top of the agreed points penalties imposed by the EFL? And then the relevant questions include how you'd quantify those losses, how you'd prove the P+S breach caused the losses, and so on, which I think will be very hard for Wycombe and Middlesbrough to do (and hard for the EFL to support). But let's get it all out in the open, and stop this "It's all very complicated but we aren't the hold up here, it's all Derby's fault!"

This is a really important point. Clearly I blame Morris for us being in administration, and the scale of our (real) debts. But it's infuriating hearing the EFL trying to both legitimise and minimise the Boro and Wycombe claims ('They must be heard!' 'They might be football debts and payable in full!' 'You can't move forward until these are dealt with!' but also 'These claims aren't the real problem!')
Well the administrators, whose job it is to sell the club, think they are a problem. Would-be buyers clearly think they are a problem. And common sense says they would be a problem. Who spends £30m or £40m on a sticker business when you might be told you need to be tens of millions more somewhere down the line?
The EFL is also suggesting there's no deal with HMRC, and that's supposedly the administrators' fault. How can there be when we don't know if these claimants are creditors at all, or football creditors, or unsecured creditors, or how much they are supposedly due?
You'd think the EFL would be more worried about the precedent of clubs effectively suing each other for damages on top of the EFL's own agreed penalties for P and S breaches that happened years ago under owners who are no longer around. Is that where we want to be? 
As I've said before, i don't think this is a story with just one villain.

This is a really important point. Clearly I blame Morris for us being in administration, and the scale of our (real) debts. But it's infuriating hearing the EFL trying to both legitimise and minimise the Boro and Wycombe claims ('They must be heard!' 'They might be football debts and payable in full!' 'You can't move forward until these are dealt with!' but also 'These claims aren't the real problem!')
Well the administrators, whose job it is to sell the club, think they are a problem. Would-be buyers clearly think they are a problem. And common sense says they would be a problem. Who spends £30m or £40m on a sticker business when you might be told you need to be tens of millions more somewhere down the line?
The EFL is also suggesting there's no deal with HMRC, and that's supposedly the administrators' fault. How can there be when we don't know if these claimants are creditors at all, or football creditors, or unsecured creditors, or how much they are supposedly due?
You'd think the EFL would be more worried about the precedent of clubs effectively suing each other for damages on top of the EFL's own agreed penalties for P and S breaches that happened years ago under owners who are no longer around. Is that where we want to be? 
As I've said before, i don't think this is a story with just one villain.

In case anyone's interested, Rob "Lionel Hutz" Couhig's given an update to Wycombe supporters with some comments on the situation with us:
https://gasroom.org/discussion/7216/rob-couhig-update
"Derby is an interesting situation. Its administrators continue to peddle the premise that Wycombe is somehow responsible for its possible demise. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wycombe had nothing to do with its accumulation of approximately £60 million in debt, including nearly £30 million to the government, £20+ million to the holder of the note of Mr. Morris which is secured by the stadium, approximately £8 million of other football debt, and, of course, the many smaller non-football creditors from the Derby area.
As of today, the administrators have not stated their plans for the resolution of the debt with any of its creditors. Although they announced a "preferred bidder" would be known "before Christmas", it has not been named. Nor did they meet their own deadline of over a month ago of making the announcement "imminently". Nothing has changed concerning the disagreement between Wycombe and Derby. There have been no discussions, no calls, nothing since I visited their offices in London last November.
There are multiple reasons why Derby owes Wycombe money. Perhaps the simplest to understand is that Derby, once it lost its arbitration, deliberately delayed turning over its reconstituted financials to avoid relegation. It did not even meet the panel’s deadline of August 14 (note: this is wrong, the original deadline was August 18th), which probably would have still allowed Wycombe to compete this year in the Championship. This cost Wycombe the difference in net revenue between competing in the Championship and League 1 this year and created likely financial losses beyond this year."
If the "simplest to understand" reason for why Derby owes Wycombe money is because Derby were given an agreed extension to a deadline so they had to input their accounts four games into the new season rather than to input their accounts three games into the new season, and this somehow stopped Wycombe from being in the Championship, then I don't think I'll be able to get my head round the other reasons. 

This is a really important point. Clearly I blame Morris for us being in administration, and the scale of our (real) debts. But it's infuriating hearing the EFL trying to both legitimise and minimise the Boro and Wycombe claims ('They must be heard!' 'They might be football debts and payable in full!' 'You can't move forward until these are dealt with!' but also 'These claims aren't the real problem!')
Well the administrators, whose job it is to sell the club, think they are a problem. Would-be buyers clearly think they are a problem. And common sense says they would be a problem. Who spends £30m or £40m on a sticker business when you might be told you need to be tens of millions more somewhere down the line?
The EFL is also suggesting there's no deal with HMRC, and that's supposedly the administrators' fault. How can there be when we don't know if these claimants are creditors at all, or football creditors, or unsecured creditors, or how much they are supposedly due?
You'd think the EFL would be more worried about the precedent of clubs effectively suing each other for damages on top of the EFL's own agreed penalties for P and S breaches that happened years ago under owners who are no longer around. Is that where we want to be? 
As I've said before, i don't think this is a story with just one villain.