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

[Ramarena]

Very skeptical about the that sheep dip post. Sounds like a 1+1= a point deduction of………………

 

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, Spanish said:

I don't know how he has come up with the breaches based on the interview, he only mentioned £4m breach in a single year.  The stadium sale would have covered 3 of the 3 year cycles I think

Yesterday Morris indicated in passing that the effect of the breach was felt in successive testing periods. 

[kevinhectoring]

2 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

Very skeptical about the that sheep dip post. Sounds like a 1+1= a point deduction of………………

 

If it was a realistic assessment of the likely points deduction, why would the EFL have offered us a deal of 9points plus 3 ?

 

[Spanish]

10 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Yesterday Morris indicated in passing that the effect of the breach was felt in successive testing periods. 

not sure he did really, he said it would not be fair to suffer multiple penalties for a single offence I think?.  The £4m would have been wiped out by the stadium sale, I will see if I still have a copy of this

[Ghost of Clough]

6 minutes ago, Spanish said:

not sure he did really, he said it would not be fair to suffer multiple penalties for a single offence I think?.  The £4m would have been wiped out by the stadium sale, I will see if I still have a copy of this

He said £4m overspend in the 2018 period using standard amortisation policies

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

56 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

He's made that a distinct possibility by putting us into administration, (which was 100% his call and his call alone).

Morris has thrown Derby County to the sharks. 

[ColonelBlimp]

I'm curious, why not do the Administration thing after the players have been paid?

Why do it this late in the month when there's nobody else to pay it?

Unless he covered it early?

[Grumpy Git]

1 minute ago, ColonelBlimp said:

Unless he covered it early?

Yeh right. ?

 

Mel's not parked the bus, he's driven it over Beachy Head.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Grumpy Git

[RadioactiveWaste]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

He said £4m overspend in the 2018 period using standard amortisation policies

I got the impression (from the rest of the interview) that whilst that may be "technically" correct, there's more to it than that. I also think that's the first time anyone connected with DCFC has admitted anything breached FFP/P&S at all.

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, ColonelBlimp said:

I'm curious, why not do the Administration thing after the players have been paid?

 

Seems self explanatory....

[Spanish]

17 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Yesterday Morris indicated in passing that the effect of the breach was felt in successive testing periods. 

so the stadium was sold in 17/18 period and that gave us a lot of headroom which should have cleared 15/18, 16/19,and 17/20 no matter what form of amortorisation we used.  So we should only fail 14/17 if there was one may have been a single year before 2017? .  I am still baffled by this perhaps @Ghost of Cloughcan help me out here.

[Ghost of Clough]

13 minutes ago, Spanish said:

so the stadium was sold in 17/18 period and that gave us a lot of headroom which should have cleared 15/18, 16/19,and 17/20 no matter what form of amortorisation we used.  So we should only fail 14/17 if there was one may have been a single year before 2017? .  I am still baffled by this perhaps @Ghost of Cloughcan help me out here.

These are the figures for the relevant seasons, using the 'Derby Method' and after P&S exclusions:
15/16 = £15.3m loss
16/17 = £13.4m loss
17/18 = £7.2m profit
3 years to 2018 = £17.5m within the limit

Derby method amortisation in those years:
15/16 = £3.37m
16/17 = £5.04m
17/18 = £6.64m
Total = £14.95m

I estimated the amortisation under a standard policy to be £36.8m, and an increase in transfer profit of about £3.5m. That equates to overspending by just under £1m.
As you know, estimating how we 'valued' players under our amortisation policy is incredibly difficult to predict. So too is guessing player transfer fees.

It's possible the EFL are using a very basic amortisation policy (amortise over original contract length) which will make the figures worse. Typical amortisation policies allow for readjustment when extending contract and allow for impairment (big drop in value upon relegation or injury).

£4m overspend under typical policy sounds reasonable though.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Ghost of Clough

[RadioactiveWaste]

Right, does anyone who knows about these sorts of things have any idea when the administrators list of assets and creditors might become public? Because that's probably going to be the first time since Morris bought the club that we have any actual clarity on how the club stands.

Given there 10 business days from notice of intent to the process starting and then 28 days for a supporters trust that's 6 weeks of uncertainty.

[kevinhectoring]

27 minutes ago, Spanish said:

not sure he did really, he said it would not be fair to suffer multiple penalties for a single offence I think?.  The £4m would have been wiped out by the stadium sale, I will see if I still have a copy of this

I took it that our position was, 4 points was fair. And the EFl said, aha but you’ve breached in the following period(s) as well, so we’ll settle for 9   As you say, M’s view was that the EFL’s position was not fair 

[Spanish]

6 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

These are the figures for the relevant seasons, using the 'Derby Method' and after P&S exclusions:
15/16 = £15.3m loss
16/17 = £13.4m loss
17/18 = £7.2m profit
3 years to 2018 = £17.5m within the limit

Derby method amortisation in those years:
15/16 = £3.37m
16/17 = £5.04m
17/18 = £6.64m
Total = £14.95m

I estimated the amortisation under a standard policy to be £36.8m, and an increase in transfer profit of about £3.5m. That equates to overspending by just under £1m.
As you know, estimating how we 'valued' players under our amortisation policy is incredibly difficult to predict. So too is guessing player transfer fees.

It's possible the EFL are using a very basic amortisation policy (amortise over original contract length) which will make the figures worse. Typical amortisation policies allow for readjustment when extending contract and allow for impairment (big drop in value upon relegation or injury).

£4m overspend under typical policy sounds reasonable though.

it is astounding when you consider that we had to sell PP and still breach though.  Maybe when he said 17/18 he was referencing the end of the 3 year period

[Spanish]

8 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I took it that our position was, 4 points was fair. And the EFl said, aha but you’ve breached in the following period(s) as well, so we’ll settle for 9   As you say, M’s view was that the EFL’s position was not fair 

they can't just settle, such breaches are linked to values.  what is up for negotiation is any further penalties for being underhand.  I guess the club under administration would be freed from this charge

[ketteringram]

11 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Right, does anyone who knows about these sorts of things have any idea when the administrators list of assets and creditors might become public? Because that's probably going to be the first time since Morris bought the club that we have any actual clarity on how the club stands.

Given there 10 business days from notice of intent to the process starting and then 28 days for a supporters trust that's 6 weeks of uncertainty.

Sorry, I've no idea, but do they even have to make it public?

[Gringo]

No they don't make that information public, anyone expressing an interest in purchasing the club will be given access to the numbers but under an NDA. After the administration is finished there will be a report going to all the creditors listing the information.

[CornwallRam]

Just now, Charlotte Ram said:

No they don't make that information public, anyone expressing an interest in purchasing the club will be given access to the numbers but under an NDA. After the administration is finished there will be a report going to all the creditors listing the information.

So someone who say owned a forum and was owed money by the club for advertising would eventually see the full picture? Do we know anyone like that?

[kevinhectoring]

11 minutes ago, Spanish said:

they can't just settle, such breaches are linked to values.  what is up for negotiation is any further penalties for being underhand.  I guess the club under administration would be freed from this charge

The EFl CAN just settle, though the panel needs to put a rubber stamp on it. The reason they can settle on a basis that departs from values is that there is still debate and potential dispute about what amortisation policy is and is not permitted under FRS 102