I know nuffin

Mucker please leave my grandma out of this

9 hours ago, Retro_RAM said:

Either Mel was right or the administrators are actually good at this. Mel couldn't sell us for love nor money for years, we go in to administration and it seems we now have at least 3 companies fighting for our hand in marriage. 

Who is the third group please

2 hours ago, Yani P said:

 

Slync baseball ground!!

If nothing else he might force others to show their interest

59 minutes ago, The Baron said:

Surely the EFL members vote on the proposals in terms of eligibility rather than the rules being dictated by the EFL board? 

How many EFL"suggestions" have been thrown out and how many when it has come to the crunch are not quite what the club's thought they were, just a question as I have no idea of the answer

2 hours ago, The Baron said:

I don't get my income from football though. 

So you do it all for free lol

8 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

If someone thinks we've broken the rules and ethically done something incorrect then even though i don't like how it's impacted the club it creates a difficult dilemma as to if it was the right thing to do. Obviously from our side he's a grass but I'm pretty sure if it was another club using these tactics we'd not be exactly claiming they were innocent either.  It's clear to anyone who's looked at the issue that we were gaining an immediate advantage using amortisation the way we did which also carried an increased risk for the future, the question of if we broke the rules or not is a different one and I can't be bothered to go back into it. 

I nor you nor anyone on this forum as far as I'm aware know Maguire or his motives. He maintains he's sick of analysing us and would like to move on, maybe the reason he hasn't is because like it or not we've become an absolute basket case that makes for sad but interesting analysis? Maybe, it's because he's  a nasty attention seeker. Only he knows but i think pinning the blame on Maguire, Parry and the EFL ignores the real problem that was at our club and who now has exited. 

If an expert, who in my book gets income from being an expert, keeps saying everything is ok they soon lose that income stream. If is only by insisting that things are wrong and the interpretation in their mind why they are wrong does that income stream continue. It's a bit like bad news sells newspapers

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Nope. Can’t agree with your first sentence even. He is not objective, he makes a living providing information as clickbait to prove his own importance! Do you really believe we’re the only club pushing boundaries?! Where is his crusade against Reading etc?

As for his professional ability’s, I remain to be convinced of his accountancy skills.

I heard the ‘message’ before that twit stuck his oar in - it was obvious Mel was pushing our spending limits in the race to the Prem. But even so, our accountancy techniques have not been proven against accounting rules, just EFLs interpretation. If the EFL had told us that sooner maybe we’d have been more cautious with our P&S spending!

Those that can do, those that cannot teach

So maquire broke the amortization policy. When breaking it why didn't he add it was different but within the FS104 rules like every other accountant has said that I have seen comment on it. Only law judges has said it broke those rules. Maguire appears to have taken the most distractive path which kind of boosts himself as an expert and pulls Derby down. Is what he has said the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth. On a similar line Mel was the driver of our car crash but he is no accountant so who came up with the amortization policy. If it was our accountants why haven't they been held to account or told to get their ruling body to agree that the policy was within their rules. In Mela place that's what we all would have demanded. 

6 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Sounds like this bloke I know. Bald, glasses, mid-fifties, answers to the name Mel?

That must be Mel's brother as Mel left John port school in 1973 aged 16 according to wiki

On the bright side by now the administrators must know what the level of debt is. Total debt and a good idea how much they can shave off it. They also might have a feeling about what the EFL will eventually do regarding points loss. Taking those thoughts into account potential investors have still come to the last 2 home matches and been seen and comments made by the media. There may or may not been more on non match days so even with that knowledge of the sort of costs involved at least two have not thrown the possibility of a takeover out of the door

7 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I thought there was an out of court settlement and rush dropping the unfair dismissal stuff because both Mel and Sam had done stuff not particularly good and not particularly wanting heard in any kind of tribunal or courtroom.

If it was settled out of court with Mel's track record it would be covered by a NDA. 

With his talent I wish that he looked to move the ball forward first and not as an afterthought of where there is a safe pass. Safe passes keep the ball, going forward is the way to goal

14 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

It could simply be a contractor, I notice the tvs were on last night in the concourse, it could be whoever sorted those out, especially if they were chatting to Owen.

I can't belive prospective buyers, who are remaining quiet, would be shown round whilst fans are everywhere.

 

Radio Derby said they were there shortly after the start

3 hours ago, Boycie said:

Ok mate.

Shows them around on a mate night, not during the day or the next day, make it obvious. ?

Radio Derby said interested party was at the match

Is it 1st April

Personally I feel it is time that the administrators made another statement to the real money, the fan base. They might have their hands full with potential buyers, EFL, tax man but don't forget the fanbase. Might have to be limited what they can say but with all the speculation kicking about from the likes of Nixon we need something from them

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Based on pre-covid wages it would be bottom 7 wage bill.

Millwall, Luton, Barnsley, Coventry, Blackpool, Peterborough

Wouldn't the payments for arsenal and the Polish club be on top of wages etc

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

Basically is this without all the exaggerations like demanded, staggering, armageddon....

Derby: "can we bring any players in during Jan?"

EFL: "you'll need to show us you have the funds to pay everyone for the rest of the season."

Derby: "seems reasonable."

Of course the EFL want to know that the club will survive. They should also know that will be in the main dependant if a buyer taking us over after passing the EFLs test where they can check that money is available and a new buyer will not catch them out like the one they passed buying Wigan. Nixon on the other hand is also just stating the b***** obvious. His next article will be about tomorrow might be Monday.

The EFLs stupidity should not be a problem. It appears prospective buyers will need to put in 45 million to take over the club. It is beyond sanity that someone would pay that much having seen the books and not have enough money to last out the season and lose the money that they have put into the club by buying it in the first place

7 hours ago, DavesaRam said:

A bit like if your proof of good financial standing is currently tied up in property, you could “show” a picture of that, couldn’t you?

Somebody might question both if it belonged to me and to prove my ssemi was worth 5, million. I suppose can live in hope....

1 hour ago, duncanjwitham said:

I don’t see how that can possibly be true, no one would pay it. But if 7 parties have paid £5m each to have a look, we’ve pretty much cleared half the debts already ?.

Though I heard in one interview they "just" had to show a bank account with 5 million in it. Unfortunately I am slightly short of that 

1 hour ago, KRAM said:

That appeal would be up to 400k of our money, the money we pay through the turnstiles. 400k we don’t have FFS.

Get real.

It's to try to win back 12 points that currently we also don't have...

On 10/10/2021 at 22:09, europia said:

Mr Morris decided that he was no longer willing to fund the clubs operational costs. That's it really. 

The word he used when chatting about going into administration was able not willing. Stated the money had run out

48 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Someone posted the EFl rule. Pretty sure it says that if the appeal is to succeed, the administration needs to be ‘solely’ caused by the force majeure event (ie covid)   Quite a high threshold and plenty of scope for debate. 

Surely there is the effect of covid on the club of about 20 million then there is the effect of covid o. MMs cash flow and his ability or not to continue subsidising the club