Derby County Administration (with the slight possibility of Liquidation still there)

[atherstoneram]

1 minute ago, Crewton said:

An earthquake is a Force Majeure event, but the impact on a wooden structure is likely to be much more severe than on a building that has been designed to withstand it. 

That difference doesn't change the nature of the event. One building collapses, the other doesn't. 

You have just answered the question there,substitute financial stability for buildings.

[Crewton]

2 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

You have just answered the question there,substitute financial stability for buildings.

But if money had been made available to reinforce the weaker structure, the Earthquake might only have caused the pictures to fall off the walls rather than cause the collapse of the entire structure. 

[Beetle]

What's changed with Mr Morris? We've been losing £39m over three years by design under him to sail as close to ffp as possible. That's over £1m a month. Why pull the the plug now?

[atherstoneram]

Just now, Crewton said:

But if money had been made available to reinforce the weaker structure, the Earthquake might only have caused the pictures to fall off the walls rather than cause the collapse of the entire structure. 

That's up to the owner to reinforce the weaker structure rather than wondering if the building will collapse,other owners had procedures in place to make sure their buildings didn't collapse in an unforeseen event by building a stronger structure.

[Indy]

5 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

That's up to the owner to reinforce the weaker structure rather than wondering if the building will collapse,other owners had procedures in place to make sure their buildings didn't collapse in an unforeseen event by building a stronger structure.

So, presumably, all those other clubs refused the £8.3m as they didn’t need it. 

[Mckram]

14 minutes ago, Beetle said:

What's changed with Mr Morris? We've been losing £39m over three years by design under him to sail as close to ffp as possible. That's over £1m a month. Why pull the the plug now?

I can think of a few reasons:

- We were close to the Premier League in the Lampard year, so risk v reward was justified. Might be £1m a month but would have got it all back with promotion. Now there’s no reward in sight.

- He’s been talking with buyers for a couple of years but said that none worked out and he feels the only way they would buy would be from administration. They’ve forced his hand.

- He knows that the 9 point deduction was coming, so might as well lump everything in one season.

All just assumptions obviously but I can see why it’s come now rather than 3 years ago with Lampard in charge. 

[atherstoneram]

Just now, Indy said:

So, presumably, all those other clubs refused the £8.3m as they didn’t need it. 

Would you refuse it if you were entitled to it. If you and your neighbours apart from one lived within your means and the other one was taking 4 or 5 holidays and maxing out the credit card would you think it acceptable for them to get the same assistance to help them as you to get through the period.

[minesahartington]

25 minutes ago, Crewton said:

But if money had been made available to reinforce the weaker structure, the Earthquake might only have caused the pictures to fall off the walls rather than cause the collapse of the entire structure. 

If you build it on sand and the conditions are for those built on rock you don’t qualify

[PistoldPete]

26 minutes ago, Crewton said:

But if money had been made available to reinforce the weaker structure, the Earthquake might only have caused the pictures to fall off the walls rather than cause the collapse of the entire structure. 

If kelle Roos hadn’t dropped the ball onto McGinnis head administration wouldn’t have happened. But that isn’t the proper legal test , you have to look at the proximate cause .

[RoyMac5]

27 minutes ago, Beetle said:

What's changed with Mr Morris? We've been losing £39m over three years by design under him to sail as close to ffp as possible. That's over £1m a month. Why pull the the plug now?

HMRC were going to issue another winding up order for their money?

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Yes the wages belt has been tightened - but how, in an unplanned way!? The squad has been left massively unbalanced and as can be seen now we are suffering because of that lack of planning.

Unfortunately plannning to reduce spending when anya butterfield and co were on four year contracts is easier said than done.

[Crewton]

6 minutes ago, minesahartington said:

If you build it on sand and the conditions are for those built on rock you don’t qualify

Those built on rock don't need it. 

[Crewton]

Still, it's good to have so many fans desperately arguing the EFL's case for them, ? 

I don't actually think that the administrators will bother to argue the case, so you can relax lads. 

[atherstoneram]

2 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Those built on rock don't need it. 

But it's the owners fault for building on sand nobody elses

[Indy]

12 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

Would you refuse it if you were entitled to it. If you and your neighbours apart from one lived within your means and the other one was taking 4 or 5 holidays and maxing out the credit card would you think it acceptable for them to get the same assistance to help them as you to get through the period.

Almost every club has ‘maxed out the credit card’ - that’s why they need the £8.3m (same as we do). The difference is that when all clubs lose their gate receipts it doesn’t affect those with parachute payments, or those with small crowds, anywhere near as much as it affected us. 
 

If you have big mortgage payments, but a steady high revenue stream that services that debt (until a force majeure wipes it out), it’s not necessarily reckless. Going into admin is the result of not being able to service the debt. But the twelve point deduction for it is a judgement on whether reckless management caused the admin. The administrator’s statement that we could have traded through if we’d had those gate receipts is making the case that high debt commitment wasn’t reckless if you had a reasonable assumption of £20m coming in to pay it. 

[atherstoneram]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

Almost every club has ‘maxed out the credit card’ - that’s why they need the £8.3m (same as we do). The difference is that when all clubs lose their gate receipts it doesn’t affect those with parachute payments, or those with small crowds, anywhere near as much as it affected us. 
 

If you have big mortgage payments, but a steady high revenue stream that services that debt (until a force majeure wipes it out), it’s not necessarily reckless. Going into admin is the result of not being able to service the debt. But the twelve point deduction for it is a judgement on whether reckless management caused the admin. The administrator’s statement that we could have traded through if we’d had those gate receipts is making the case that high debt commitment wasn’t reckless if you had a reasonable assumption of £20m coming in to pay it. 

Do you know what the £8.3M loan was specifically for?

[minesahartington]

14 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Those built on rock don't need it. 

Yes everyone needed it to fill the bucket. We would have used it fill the well. Thats the problem

[Indy]

1 minute ago, atherstoneram said:

Do you know what the £8.3M loan was specifically for?

Was it to service HMRC payments? The argument being that we had a winding up order from HMRC in January 2020 so shouldn’t be eligible (even though it was cleared in six days and not in force when COVID affected our revenue)?
 

If the eligibility that we failed was because we were under investigation due to EFL breaches (which we were subsequently cleared of) then that’s a different matter. 

Regardless of that - I think the administrators are laying the ground to challenge the 12 point deduction, not argue for getting the £8m. If (big if) they win that then they have a club still in the championship to sell, which might be worth at least trying to make the case. 

[CornwallRam]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Player wages have dropped from £47 million in 2017-18 to just over £10 million now.. so there has actually been a massive tightening  of the belt. Unfortunately revenue has also dropped mainly due to covid.

Season ticket money this year is just a carry forward from last year so only match day tickets providing attendance money. Thats why we are still losing money. 

 

According to the Athletic our wage bill is a lot higher than £10m. They quoted £2.5m a month. I asked Matt Slater where he got that figure from and he said 'various sources' 

Where did you get your figure from?

Without the accounts  I suspect its going to be pretty hard to pin it down. It will be interesting to see how much of the administrators information finds its way into the public domain 

 

[atherstoneram]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

Was it to service HMRC payments? The argument being that we had a winding up order from HMRC in January 2020 so shouldn’t be eligible (even though it was cleared in six days and not in force when COVID affected our revenue)?
 

If the eligibility that we failed was because we were under investigation due to EFL breaches (which we were subsequently cleared of) then that’s a different matter. 

Regardless of that - I think the administrators are laying the ground to challenge the 12 point deduction, not argue for getting the £8m. If (big if) they win that then they have a club still in the championship to sell, which might be worth at least trying to make the case. 

It was to ensure that clubs could cover PAYE payments to HMRC as you say, not to pay off any possible debts that was owed to HMRC.

Lets just hope the EFL/administrators come to some mutually agreeable arrangement so the club can move forward in some way or another and start to rebuild the club