Steve Gibson trying to liquidate Derby

[Maharan]

Just now, Indy said:

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. 

Okay, cheers. I wasn’t sure. 

[Ken Tram]

10 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

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)

But surely it is poor regulation for us to be being sanctioned for 2014-17 in 2021?

[duncanjwitham]

3 minutes ago, Indy said:

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. 

Yeah, that's pretty close.  They took the average cost per seat of a bunch of similar stadia, and multiplied it up to match Pride Park.  Then basically fudge it a bit for finance costs, depreciation etc.  The argument was over the choice of stadia to use as comparisons.

Page 88 onwards in here: https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/efl-v-Derby-county--decision.pdf

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, Ken Tram said:

But surely it is poor regulation for us to be being sanctioned for 2014-17 in 2021?

To a large extent that was Middlesbrough's point.

Except it wasn't. Boro blew it on going up that season and they want someone to pay for it.

[Ken Tram]

What is stopping the EFL from stating that Middlesbrough's claim is a non-football debt?

Are they scared of being sued by Middlesbrough?

[Ellafella]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/01/20/footballs-financial-lunacy-cannot-tackled-red-tape/

It’s difficult not to conclude that we’ve seen gross EFL incompetence throughout this saga. A worthy governance institution should enforce rules in a timely manner and offer clarity. The FFP regulations are specifically supposed to ensure that members cannot get into these situations. On those grounds, the EFL has failed. While Derby supporters know that ultimate blame lies with Mel Morris, Derby South MP Margaret Beckett spoke for many in saying: “If Derby are to be liquidated, none of those involved will be forgiven.”

[Ken Tram]

Whether or not Middlesbrough's claim would be a football debt, why would an owner take on that liability unless they were certain it had no merit?

And if they are assured that it had no merit, what does it matter if it is counted as a football debt?

in this case, could sufficiently wealthy owners say that they will take on the claim by Middlesbrough - based on their assessment of the risk? 

[Gordamn]

Just now, Ken Tram said:

What is stopping the EFL from stating that Middlesbrough's claim is a non-football debt?

Are they scared of being sued by Middlesbrough?

I think they have as much admitted that. Boro threatened the EFL with action and the EFL pointed them to us.

The frustrating part is (someone correct me if I am wrong) is that the EFL won't say yes this is or no it isn't a football debt as either answer creates so many issues for them. It either sets a precedent that unproven claims are football debts which would be ridiculous as they are unproven in a court of law or they get sued by Boro and have to go to court. This would then highlight their mistakes in the public eye.

[Ellafella]

2 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

What is stopping the EFL from stating that Middlesbrough's claim is a non-football debt?

Are they scared of being sued by Middlesbrough?

Yes; Boro have them in a double-bind. Support us to sue Derby or we sue you for failing to act. It's a deal done by Boro weeks and weeks ago. That's why EFL simply won't budge. It's easier to screw Derby now than be called out for incompetence earlier. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

Just now, Ken Tram said:

Whether or not Middlesbrough's claim would be a football debt, why would an owner take on that liability unless they were certain it had no merit?

And if they are assured that it had no merit, what does it matter if it is counted as a football debt?

in this case, could sufficiently wealthy owners say that they will take on the claim by Middlesbrough - based on their assessment of the risk? 

They could.

It's been made clear non of the potential owners are willing to.

[Ken Tram]

I suppose this is why people say that Mike Ashley may leave it until the last second!

As we approach liquidation date, Middlesbrough's expected income from their claim approaches zero; as does the value of the stadium.

Ashley can take it or leave it. So, Middlesbrough may blink first. Middlesbrough may prefer a smaller settlement, than get nothing.

Sadly, we fans may have to endure things going to the wire.

[Gordamn]

6 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Yes; Boro have them in a double-bind. Support us to sue Derby or we sue you for failing to act. It's a deal done by Boro weeks and weeks ago. That's why EFL simply won't budge. It's easier to screw Derby now than be called out for incompetence earlier. 

Do you know whether the EFL can legally not make a ruling on this? Surely they have to say categorically whether this is football debt or not?

Maybe I've misunderstood but  I can't find anywhere where the EFL have confirmed one way or another. Apologies if this has been asked/answered before.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Gordamn
Typo

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Derby vs QPR – 13/14, Derby lost in Playoff Final
Wigan vs QPR - 13/14, lost to QPR in Semi-Final
Reading vs QPR - 13/13, finished 7th
Derby vs Leicester – 13/14, won the League, Derby placing 3rd
Boro vs Bournemouth – 14/15, won the League, Boro were highest placed side not promoted (4th)
Ipswich and Cardiff vs Derby and Sheff Weds – 15/16, 7th and 8th placed sides missed out to 5th and 6th
Leeds vs Sheff Weds – 16/17, Leeds finished 7th as Sheff Weds were 4th
Blackburn vs Birmingham – 16/17, Birmingham 2 points ahead of 22nd placed Blackburn
Preston vs Derby – 17/18, Derby 6th, Preston 7th
Barnsley and Burton vs Birmingham and Reading – 17/18 Birmingham finished 5 points ahead of the relegated teams whereas Reading only 3.
Bristol vs Derby – 18/19, Derby beat Bristol at the end of the season. Bristol winning would have meant Derby 8th, Bristol 6th
Leeds vs Derby - 18/19, Derby beat Leeds in the Playoff Semi-Final
Rotherham vs Reading – 18/19, Reading finished 7 points ahead of relegated Rotherham
Charlton vs Reading – 19/20, Reading finished 8 points ahead of relegated Charlton
Sheff Weds vs Derby – 20/21, Derby would have lost on the final day due to nothing to play for, resulting in a Sheff Weds win and them staying up

Using Gibson's calculator* teams need to be awarded:
Boro = £90m
Leeds = £90m
Derby = £84m
Bristol = £45m
Cardiff = £45m
Ipswich = £45m
Preston = £45m
Wigan = £45m
Reading = £27m
Barnsley = £6m
Blackburn = £6m
Burton = £6m
Charlton = £6m
Rotherham = £6m
Birmingham = (£12m)
Sheff Weds = (£84m)
Bournemouth = (£90m)
Leicester = (£180m)
QPR = (£180m)

*£180m for losing to a Playoff Finalist or missing out on automatics, £90m for losing in the semi-finals,£45m for missing out on the playoffs, £6m for relegation

 

Others include:

13/14
Leeds – No impact
Blackburn – No impact
Forest – No impact

14/15
Millwall – No impact (relegated)
Fulham – No impact (11 points ahead of 22nd placed Millwall who also exceeded limits)
Forest – No impact
Derby – No impact

15/16
Birmingham – No impact

16/17
Derby – No impact

17/18
Sheff Weds – No impact

19/20
Derby – No impact

20/21
Reading – No impact

Bloody brilliant work. We’ll done. This needs to be shown to the world quite frankly. Bristol Cardiff and Ipswich would be quite interested in. Also shows that we’ve been wronged almost as much as boro by ffp cheats. And we’re not the only ones that have cheated boro.

this is the chaos that the efl could descend into if boro and wycome’s cases are upheld, and the efl and everyone else needs to see it spelt out to them like this. 

I honestly think we should make our spurious claims against qpr and Leicester now. A) to prove a point. B) to be able to say to the league that, assuming we get the same result in those cases as Vito get in ours, we’ll be able to pay boro with our payout. Or we won’t win, so neither will boro. 

apparently just making the claim is enough to make it matter. 

not to mention all the dozens of smaller claims for clubs simply missing out on their prize money for a being a place or two higher. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by TigerTedd

[Ghost of Clough]

7 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? ?‍♂️ 

Valuation was based entirely on what we already have. The closest factor to what you state is the original design of the stadium enabled the potential for future expansion. 

Part of the calcuation used involved "cost per seat". JLL, the valuers hired by Derby, used £3k per seat, which was actually LESS than the equivalent for Brentford (£4k), Brighton (£4.6k), Wimbledon (£3.5k), Southend (£3.5k), and Fylde (£3.3k).
Please also note, JLL used the equivalent to £4k per seat in a 2013 report.

[Ken Tram]

14 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

They could.

It's been made clear non of the potential owners are willing to.

If none of the bidders are willing to take on the liability of Middlesbrough's claim; that must mean that they think that the claim has some merit!?

Or it means that they want to settle (to have certainty), and will hold out as long as possible in a game of Derby Liquified Chicken!

................

But which one?

Edited January 20, 2022 by Ken Tram

[JfR]

23 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Yeah, that's pretty close.  They took the average cost per seat of a bunch of similar stadia, and multiplied it up to match Pride Park.  Then basically fudge it a bit for finance costs, depreciation etc.  The argument was over the choice of stadia to use as comparisons.

Page 88 onwards in here: https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/efl-v-Derby-county--decision.pdf

 

It's a minor point, but the EFL's valuer didn't multiply it to match Pride Park's capacity, he multiplied it to match the average attendance Derby had got in recent seasons. Just another example of why the commission cleared us on that charge.

[TigerTedd]

5 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

If none of the bidders are willing to take on the liability of Middlesbrough's claim; that must means that they think that the claim has some merit! 

Or it means that they want to settle (to have certainty), and will hold out as long as possible in a game of Derby Liquified Chicken!

It’s not their job to take the risk. It probably has no merit, but nothing is certain in life, and if they get it wrong, they’ve just committed to £45m or whatever it is for something they have nothing to do with. It’s just not worth any level of risk. 

[Ellafella]

14 minutes ago, Gordamn said:

Do you know whether the EFL can legally not make a ruling on this? Surely they have to say categorically whether this is football debt or not?

Maybe I've misunderstood but  I can't find anywhere where the EFL have confirmed one way or another. Apologies if this has been asked/answered before.

They don’t need to unless a legal challenge is brought which would take months- their rules leave them with discretion to judge a case on specific merit. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

Also, the administrators want the legal opinion to be that there's no great risk from these claims because they want to sell the club.

I'd imagine serious bidders have got their own opinions.

[Mihangel]

32 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

To a large extent that was Middlesbrough's point.

Except it wasn't. Boro blew it on going up that season and they want someone to pay for it.

Quite - Additionally, given that clubs have financial years that end in May, June, July - It is not possible to punish a club within the 3 year period as there is no way on earth an audited set of accounts would available in time. In this instance, let's say Derby's became available in June (again, almost impossible) what did Boro expect? Go back and redo the play offs? Nah.