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

[Rampage]

27 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

A fair outcome will be to pay what we can afford to pay to HMRc and then come out of administration under a new owner so that we can continue to pay HMRC going forward.

You should be negotiating the dea,l mate.

[Rampage]

Best way of people getting money back is a swift takeover. Everyone wins 

[Rev]

22 minutes ago, jono said:

It’s an interesting point. Businesses in trouble for a number of reasons. Along comes Covid with a wrecking ball. 
I wonder …. Why was the EFL the one dispensing public money to the needy ? Was the 8.5 mill public money ? If so then The EFL seems to have inserted itself as a middleman between a Govt willing to give aid and Clubs needing it … Who gave the EFL that particular deal ? One wonders what oversight has been placed on the EFL and what gives them the role as life and death arbiter of individual companies financial difficulties in a global pandemic, especially when it’s based on an arcane rule book that wasn’t created for those circumstances ?

The EFL money was borrowed by the league from an American firm, with the PL covering the interest.

https://www.cityam.com/english-football-clubs-turn-to-met-life-for-117-5m-loan-after-baulking-at-bank-of-england-emergency-funding-conditions/

Public money came with too many strings attached.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11688/12223602/efl-extremely-disappointed-after-government-halts-scheduled-100m-loan-to-championship-clubs

 

 

[atherstoneram]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

You believe wrong. We were denied the loan by the EFL because we were suspected of breaking the rules, including the stadium sale.  In fact the IDC decided we had not broken that rule, but too late we were denied the loan anyway. Clubs in receipt of parachute money were already getting money from EPL so didn't need the loan. Derby weren't , and defintely needed the loan but were denied the loan by EFL  as extra punishment for crimes we were later found not to have committed.

It wasn't the EFL giving the loan,it was the finance company and i haven't seen anywhere the EFL has said it's because we have broke the rules, that is what the club is alleged to have said.If it was the EFL issuing the loan they wouldn't have sought the interests of an outside party.

https://www.efl.com/news/2021/september/efl-statement-Derby-county2/

As with any loan the club would have to provide financial details to MetLife who would carry out a financial risk assessment before releasing the funds,perhaps the club were deemed as a bad risk financial wise and that is what as meant as being unable to meet the required eligibility

[atherstoneram]

40 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I don't know where you've been living, but I'm pretty sure I couldn't get in Pride Park for a competitive game between 12th March 2020 and 5th August 2021 

They were still playing matches,whether supporters could access the ground or not.

[jono]

7 minutes ago, Rev said:

The EFL money was borrowed by the league from an American firm, with the PL covering the interest.

https://www.cityam.com/english-football-clubs-turn-to-met-life-for-117-5m-loan-after-baulking-at-bank-of-england-emergency-funding-conditions/

Public money came with too many strings attached.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11688/12223602/efl-extremely-disappointed-after-government-halts-scheduled-100m-loan-to-championship-clubs

 

 

Thanks Rev.. I really didn’t know that … but so very interesting.. is that loan within FFP I wonder ?

So are the members responsible for repaying the capital sum ? I mean it is the members who attract the income for the EFL isn’t it ? And as members why should we be responsible for a debt that gave us no benefit whatsoever ? 

[Rev]

15 minutes ago, jono said:

Thanks Rev.. I really didn’t know that … but so very interesting.. is that loan within FFP I wonder ?

So are the members responsible for repaying the capital sum ? I mean it is the members who attract the income for the EFL isn’t it ? And as members why should we be responsible for a debt that gave us no benefit whatsoever ? 

Good question.

I'd assume those that have borrowed from the scheme pay back, those that haven't don't.

I'd have thought it would be easy enough to sort out, just withhold a percentage of due league income over the timescale of repayment until the loan is repaid, in the event of promotion have the PL make the appropriate deduction and forward it on.

I think the EFL have got themselves into a buggers muddle when it comes to Profit and Sustainability.

The people now in charge see the past rules as unworkable, and would like to reform them, but at the same time have to enforce the rules set out by their predecessors.

Without external pressure from other member clubs, I suspect the EFL would quite liked to have called it quits at the £100k fine, and moved on with reforming the rulebook and everyone being given a clean slate.

 

 

[Crewton]

35 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

They were still playing matches,whether supporters could access the ground or not.

"Fans have been back in grounds for nearly a year now" 

You used this "fact", and the club's subscription service, to suggest that the club's loss of revenue was short-lived when, in reality, its income has been significantly diminished since the first lockdown and hasn't recovered to its pre-pandemic level even now. 

We'll see in due course how other clubs have been affected, but I'll be amazed if most of the non-parachute payment clubs aren't carrying far more debt than they were 18 months ago, be that "soft" debt or the more problematic kind. 

[rammieib]

If anyone thinks our wage bill is still around 30m you’re in cloud cuckoo land

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, atherstoneram said:

It wasn't the EFL giving the loan,it was the finance company and i haven't seen anywhere the EFL has said it's because we have broke the rules, that is what the club is alleged to have said.If it was the EFL issuing the loan they wouldn't have sought the interests of an outside party.

https://www.efl.com/news/2021/september/efl-statement-Derby-county2/

As with any loan the club would have to provide financial details to MetLife who would carry out a financial risk assessment before releasing the funds,perhaps the club were deemed as a bad risk financial wise and that is what as meant as being unable to meet the required eligibility

That statement was , like most EFL statements concerning Derby disingenuos (at best) in the extreme.

Deatls of the conditions are given in this article

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/premier-league-efl-agree-rescue-package/

 

"Clubs in breach or suspected to be in breach of EFL regulations will not be able to access the loan facility and any club receiving a loan must maintain compliance with EFL regulations."

 

So as Derby were at the time in suspected breach, they were not eligible for that reason .. a detail the EFL conveniently omit to give in their press statement.

 

 

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, rammieib said:

If anyone thinks our wage bill is still around 30m you’re in cloud cuckoo land

True , but oddly its the same keyboard warriors who say we are spending £30m per annum in wages who say we owed shed loads of money to HMRC before the pandemic.. yet if we are paying that amount in wages our debt to HMRC would have grown massively over the last 18 months.

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

"Fans have been back in grounds for nearly a year now" 

You used this "fact", and the club's subscription service, to suggest that the club's loss of revenue was short-lived when, in reality, its income has been significantly diminished since the first lockdown and hasn't recovered to its pre-pandemic level even now. 

We'll see in due course how other clubs have been affected, but I'll be amazed if most of the non-parachute payment clubs aren't carrying far more debt than they were 18 months ago, be that "soft" debt or the more problematic kind. 

The fact they were still playing matches meant the players still had to be paid their wages. So the losses just grew with no revenue from crowds , corporate hospitality etc.

[Yani P]

Did the administrators say that even though HMRC were preferred creditors they would not necessarily get all the money owed?

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

5 hours ago, Yani P said:

Did the administrators say that even though HMRC were preferred creditors they would not necessarily get all the money owed?

Yes, that's my understanding 

[Woodley Ram]

14 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

I think Hmrc didn’t collect taxes in recognition of the COVID situation . And the reason for that was yes in part because the Government recognised the financial strain their policies were causing . 
 

how it comes about when a Company or an individual gets into financial difficulty is they pay bills they have to to avoid further financial disaster. Player wages we know are a good example .. miss those on a regular basis and you lose players , get thrown out of the league or whatever no one would buy the club and Hmrc would get paid nothing. 

to be honest , I am more concerned about shinner Nicholson losing his job than I am Hmrc getting 25 p in the pound or whatever.
 

 

they collected my VAT. The only thing that Derby could have done is apply for loans but they probably (like the £8.5m from the EFL) didnt qualify.

We owe VAT so we should pay it. Derby are no different than a lot of businesses that had to close over lockdown.

We need to do deals re the debts to reduce them and talk to the EFL about a possible reduction in the admin deduction based on Covid (or tell them we will appeal) and make the FFP one as small as possible.

Judging by what the Administrators are saying it sounds that (bar the debts) we are in a reasonable state to go forward.

The debts are the problem and an owner who has decided not to continue to financially support the club. Others such as Reading (bigger debts, bigger operating losses, less income etc) have the owner funding.

Im not having a go at Mel, he pumped in a vast portion of his income which in football terms is not great (I know to us it is) and for what ever reason he decided enough was enough.

[Woodley Ram]

10 hours ago, Crewton said:

"Fans have been back in grounds for nearly a year now" 

You used this "fact", and the club's subscription service, to suggest that the club's loss of revenue was short-lived when, in reality, its income has been significantly diminished since the first lockdown and hasn't recovered to its pre-pandemic level even now. 

We'll see in due course how other clubs have been affected, but I'll be amazed if most of the non-parachute payment clubs aren't carrying far more debt than they were 18 months ago, be that "soft" debt or the more problematic kind. 

2 months not nearly a year, we came back at the start of the new season in August

[G STAR RAM]

15 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

So the Government compensated people who couldn’t earn anything. Why didn’t they compensate Derby for their loss of income due to protecting the NHS and banning football crowds ?

Not completely true, the furlough scheme helped out employers and employers alike. 

There were also a few other schemes although these would only have run into the 10s of thousand £s, certainly nothing like the 80% that a large number of people got paid for doing nothing.

[G STAR RAM]

11 hours ago, atherstoneram said:

It wasn't the EFL giving the loan,it was the finance company and i haven't seen anywhere the EFL has said it's because we have broke the rules, that is what the club is alleged to have said.If it was the EFL issuing the loan they wouldn't have sought the interests of an outside party.

https://www.efl.com/news/2021/september/efl-statement-Derby-county2/

As with any loan the club would have to provide financial details to MetLife who would carry out a financial risk assessment before releasing the funds,perhaps the club were deemed as a bad risk financial wise and that is what as meant as being unable to meet the required eligibility

It was the EFL who took out the loan and then distributed between member clubs.

[kevinhectoring]

5 hours ago, Yani P said:

Did the administrators say that even though HMRC were preferred creditors they would not necessarily get all the money owed?

The admins said that HMRC has first claim against floating charge assets. In other words, they rank behind MSD’s charge on fixed assets. They also rank behind administrators costs, which I think includes any debt the admins raise to fund us until sale 

As I understand it, the reason HMRC agrees to a haircut is this:

the club only survives as a going concern if 25% of unsecured creditor claims are repaid and if all football creditors are paid. So the admins will show HMRC sale scenarios with indicative sales prices. These will show that if HMRC and unsecured creditors do not agree a deal then the EFL requirement for continued EFL membership will not be met which will mean the club goes into insolvent liquidation. In other words if HMRC does not compromise, it could get nothing because the club would be history. 

 

[Crewton]

43 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

2 months not nearly a year, we came back at the start of the new season in August

Yeah, I made that point in my previous post. 

I'm not really sure what this poster is trying to prove - a £20m hit on the club's income over the past 18 months is entirely plausible and without cash being injected by the owner or from borrowing it would have gone into Administration much earlier.