Steve Gibson trying to liquidate Derby

[Ghost of Clough]

14 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

The EFL should compensate Middlesbrough.

Middlesbrough were right - the regulation was not fit for purpose - EFL were in the wrong.

Derby did not blatantly break the rules. The arbitrators found in our favour - which was overturned by appeal.

We have had a sanction, within the rules.

I think I'm saying that Middlesbrough were not wrong to try to put an end to poor regulation. Everyone agrees with them. The regulator should take the hit, rather than singling outa whipping boy.

Wrong. If following EFL procedures, Derby's first P&S penalty would have been in the 17/18 season for failing the 3 year period ending in 2017. The next failed period was 2019, which would have resulted in a penalty in 19/20

When Middlesbrough originally threatened to sue, it was for failing the 3 year period ending in 2018 where the penalty would have been applied to 18/19.

[duncanjwitham]

6 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Derby vs QPR – 13/14, Derby lost in Playoff Final

I think you're under-selling it tbh. That season alone, you can argue at least Reading (finished 7th) and Wigan (lost in the playoff semi to QPR) have cases against QPR, for example.

[Ken Tram]

5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The rules were expressly changed a few seasons before we did it, to allow profit/loss from disposal of fixed tangible assets to count towards FFP.  There's no question of interpretation here as it was a change that was consciously and deliberately made.  And the value was determined correctly by a 3rd party valuer, so there's no issue there either.

The rules were changed back a few seasons later, so it's not allowed any more.  But that's not relevant to our case, as it was clearly and deliberately allowed at the time.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to argue!

I think that the regulator was at fault to allow stadium-sales to count towards Financial Fair Play.

It may not have been the regulator's intention. 

Maybe Derby and other clubs found a loophole.

But I think that it was not wrong for a club like Middlesbrough to challenge such actions - because, as you say, the loophole was later closed.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

10 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

Did Middlesbrough voluntarily switch their legal claim from the EFL to Derby - or did they lose their claim against the EFL?

If it was voluntary, one solution to this impasse might be too persuade Middlesbrough to switch their claim back to the EFL!

its not in there interest.  At the minute their getting away with murder.  If the EFL is sued, members pay the bill and they would rather scrap this claim in a second.  Being unpopular with Derby and finishing them off is different to finishing of League 2 and half of league 1.  They wouldn't have the balls.

[Beetle]

If MFC are not happy with the EFL punishment that we have received they should take it up with the EFL and not us. If they don't like it they can leave the EFL. From what I'm aware no-one is forcing them to be members.

[Ghost of Clough]

5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I think you're under-selling it tbh. That season alone, you can argue at least Reading (finished 7th) and Wigan (lost in the playoff semi to QPR) have cases against QPR, for example.

Good point. Just edited my post ?

[duncanjwitham]

Just now, Ken Tram said:

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to argue!

I think that the regulator was at fault to allow stadium-sales to count towards Financial Fair Play.

It may not have been the regulator's intention. 

Maybe Derby and other clubs found a loophole.

But I think that it was not wrong for a club like Middlesbrough to challenge such actions - because, as you say, the loophole was later closed.

The clubs vote for the rules though, or at least vote to approve them. The clubs clearly thought it was something they wanted. And then when they saw it play out, they changed their minds (as is their right, obviously).

I find it hard to see it as a loophole too.  The only major fixed tangible assets clubs have are their stadium and training ground, so it's not really clear what else this rule change could be for.  If I was guessing, I'd say that enough clubs sensed they were sailing close enough to the FFP thresholds to want a fallback option there, just in case. And then the backlash etc made enough of them change their minds a few years later.

[Ken Tram]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Wrong. If following EFL procedures, Derby's first P&S penalty would have been in the 17/18 season for failing the 3 year period ending in 2017. The next failed period was 2019, which would have resulted in a penalty in 19/20

When Middlesbrough originally threatened to sue, it was for failing the 3 year period ending in 2018 where the penalty would have been applied to 18/19.

Thanks for pointing that out. Was I won't about the first period of FFP beaches?

I had thought that all of the breaches were to do with our use of non standard approaches to football amortisation.

And I thought that the delays were within the rules that allowed challenges and appeals.

So, the regulator could have had tighter timescales, or additional consequences for extended unsuccessful challenges.

[Indy]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Radrizzani: "I wanted to focus on the football" ?

On a tangent - I watched the Amazon series and apart from the comedy of the spygate and play-off episodes, I thought Radrizzani came across very well. Committed, fair-minded and sensible. 

[Indy]

25 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

But, to some degree, was that not still Middlesbrough challenging poor regulation?

The sale of the stadium (whether or not it was within the rules) sounds pretty dodgy to me.

I don't think the rules should allow the sale of a stadium as a way to get around football expenditure rules. After all, the stadium sale has put us in a worse position.

It's like when a business has subsidiaries in Panama - it may not be illegal, but it is clearly dodgy in the eyes of most people.

He’s have sold the Riverside to himself if he could have, so I wouldn’t concede the moral high ground to someone shuffling their football club losses to a haulage firm to sidestep FFP limits. 

[Ken Tram]

9 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

its not in there interest.  At the minute their getting away with murder.  If the EFL is sued, members pay the bill and they would rather scrap this claim in a second.  Being unpopular with Derby and finishing them off is different to finishing of League 2 and half of league 1.  They wouldn't have the balls.

If £45m or some lower settlement would finish off the EFL, then maybe the Premier League can do something!

After all, it was rabid attempts to get into their pack which encouraged this situation!

[Gordamn]

11 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to argue!

I think that the regulator was at fault to allow stadium-sales to count towards Financial Fair Play.

It may not have been the regulator's intention. 

Maybe Derby and other clubs found a loophole.

But I think that it was not wrong for a club like Middlesbrough to challenge such actions - because, as you say, the loophole was later closed.

I genuinely think this would have been resolved by now if MM hadn't made it personal between him and SG.

Don't blame boro or their fans for disliking us. Will blame SG if we get liquidated and he gets nothing as will simply show its petty revenge towards our old owner over wanting compensation.

As always the EFL is useless and I can't see how they could have mismanaged this any more.

[Ken Tram]

9 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The clubs vote for the rules though, or at least vote to approve them. The clubs clearly thought it was something they wanted. And then when they saw it play out, they changed their minds (as is their right, obviously).

I find it hard to see it as a loophole too.  The only major fixed tangible assets clubs have are their stadium and training ground, so it's not really clear what else this rule change could be for.  If I was guessing, I'd say that enough clubs sensed they were sailing close enough to the FFP thresholds to want a fallback option there, just in case. And then the backlash etc made enough of them change their minds a few years later.

Thanks v much for explaining that. I think you're right.

What I think is wrong is that the regulator allowed the finances of football to get in to a state where lots of clubs needed a quick fix of a stadium sale.

It was unsustainable.

 

 

 

[Ghost of Clough]

8 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

Thanks for pointing that out. Was I won't about the first period of FFP beaches?

I had thought that all of the breaches were to do with our use of non standard approaches to football amortisation.

And I thought that the delays were within the rules that allowed challenges and appeals.

So, the regulator could have had tighter timescales, or additional consequences for extended unsuccessful challenges.

When the accounts were restated in line with what the EFL demanded, we were deemed to have failed the following periods:

• 2014-2017 (£7.76m)
• 2016-2019 (£11.72m)
• 2017-2021 (£1.96m)

2015-2018 was £10.88m under the limits, whilst 2017-2020 was discounted on Covid grounds (estimated by me at £11.12m above the limits)

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 minute ago, Ken Tram said:

If £45m or some lower settlement would finish off the EFL, then maybe the Premier League can do something!

After all, it was rabid attempts to get into their pack which encouraged this situation!

It wouldn't unfortunately, they would just reduce payments to other clubs to cover costs, thereby finishing the smaller ones off.  Championship and a number of League 1 clubs would be ok but seeing as half the clubs in this league are hanging round the FFP disaster area their not likely to increase the their debt load  by giving up their share to benefit others. 

[Maharan]

Wasn’t the stadium valuation based on the plans Morris had drawn up to put a roof on it, and market it as a concert venue? Could the fact this never materialised have any bearing? ?‍♂️ 

[Ken Tram]

5 minutes ago, Indy said:

He’s have sold the Riverside to himself if he could have, so I wouldn’t concede the moral high ground to someone shuffling their football club losses to a haulage firm to sidestep FFP limits. 

Oh! There are so many holes in my understanding. Has Gibson been massaging the FFP rules with large dollops of aromatics too!?

Having said that, I am happy to give him a massage if he withdraws his claim against Derby. (I clearly have a price!)

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, Ken Tram said:

Thanks v much for explaining that. I think you're right.

What I think is wrong is that the regulator allowed the finances of football to get in to a state where lots of clubs needed a quick fix of a stadium sale.

It was unsustainable.

No arguments from me there. I've said all along that FFP in it's current form isn't fit for purpose.  I'd much prefer something like the wages/turnover ratio limit that applies in Leagues 1 and 2.  It's overspending on wages that kills clubs, not owners chucking some extra money in to buy a new striker - as we're amply demonstrating right now ?.

[Indy]

3 minutes ago, Maharan said:

Wasn’t the stadium valuation based on the plans Morris had drawn up to put a roof on it, and market it as a concert venue? Could the fact this never materialised have any bearing? ?‍♂️ 

Others will put me right - but I don’t think so. I think it was based on replacement cost worked out on cost per seat using a figure appropriate for a second division club with reasonable prem aspirations. So not as expensive per seat as Emirates, but not as cheap as Chesterfield, for example. 
 

The EFL came armed with figures based on Morecambe’s ground and were laughed out of court. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

2 minutes ago, Maharan said:

Wasn’t the stadium valuation based on the plans Morris had drawn up to put a roof on it, and market it as a concert venue? Could the fact this never materialised have any bearing? ?‍♂️ 

It's a good point - there was a lot of speculation that being a stadium venue that could hold concerts during the football season was a pretty unique proposition and feasible to do.

The valuation was based on that potential, but that potential was always speculative.

I think the resolution in the original hearing is the final word on that - but again, it was one that was always a stretch and amounted to a rare case of Mel and Pearce being actually clever and not just thinking they are clever.