Steve Gibson trying to liquidate Derby

[StaffsRam]

-21 points, 5 transfer windows under embargo, £100k fine, administration, likely relegation. That’s all for Mel’s transgressions, and we’ve largely accepted that. The threat of liquidation due to spurious legal claims is totally separate to that. We can be rightly angered at Mel, and we are, for all the above, and STILL be angry with MFC, WW, and through complicity, the EFL, for the continued vendetta, and it IS a vendetta against the club.

Our punishment, is unprecedented, and they’re still NOT happy. If that’s not vindictive and spiteful I don’t know what is. Pushing a fellow club into oblivion because you have a gripe at someone who’s no longer anywhere near the club. This is why children shouldn’t be allowed to own clubs. In fact I’m being unfair there, not even most children would behave in the way that pube-head and the ambulance chaser are. When an independent regulator is finally installed, the first thing they should do is kick this pair out of the game entirely. Football would be far better off without either of them.

[RammingStone66]

2 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

The thing I cant understand is that fans of other clubs cannot see the wider implications if Boro and Wycombe succeed. They cant look past "Derby cheated hur dur" and see that the EFL regulations allow for any club to sink another with any form of claim if they end up in administration.

If Wycombe went in to admin in future and we decided to get our own back and put their existence at risk by slapping in a massively daft claim then apparently that's fine?

They all need to wake up.

You would think it could even set the precident for clubs to be making claims against each other everytime accounts are released. You could have clubs demanding be moved, fined, promoted, demoted etc. 

It's an insane situation for the EFL to put themselves in. If they kill us off, the government probably steps in and kills the EFL. If we survive, Boro sue them, their horrible governance is exposed and maybe the government step in and kill them anyway.

Sort of feels like, "well if we are going to die we are taking Derby with us" 

[RammingStone66]

1 minute ago, StaffsRam said:

-21 points, 5 transfer windows under embargo, £100k fine, administration, likely relegation. That’s all for Mel’s transgressions, and we’ve largely accepted that. The threat of liquidation due to spurious legal claims is totally separate to that. We can be rightly angered at Mel, and we are, for all the above, and STILL be angry with MFC, WW, and through complicity, the EFL, for the continued vendetta, and it IS a vendetta against the club.

Our punishment, is unprecedented, and they’re still NOT happy. If that’s not vindictive and spiteful I don’t know what is. Pushing a fellow club into oblivion because you have a gripe at someone who’s no longer anywhere near the club. This is why children shouldn’t be allowed to own clubs. In fact I’m being unfair there, not even most children would behave in the way that pube-head and the ambulance chaser are. When an independent regulator is finally installed, the first thing they should do is kick this pair out of the game entirely. Football would be far better off without either of them.

You notice the media never mention the 5 window embargo ....just that we are cheats and had points deducted. It's embargos arnt a punishment unless your a top 6 prem club ?

[MK-Ram]

It would help if any of the players we had overspent on had been any good. Apart from Vydra (who left at the beginning of that season) and Bielik (who joined the season after and has been injured ever since), anyone else we overpaid for has been mediocre at best.

Our best players were always those at reasonable fees (I e. Bryson, Keogh), on frees (Martin), or who had come through the academy (Bogle).

 

If we had signed Mount, Tomori, and Wilson on permanents then I would see the point.  At the time, however, all three were reasonable championship loans.  Wilson and Tomori had just been at Hull, not Barcelona.

Edited January 20, 2022 by MK-Ram

[Mihangel]

45 minutes ago, StaffsRam said:

-21 points, 5 transfer windows under embargo, £100k fine, administration, likely relegation. That’s all for Mel’s transgressions, and we’ve largely accepted that. The threat of liquidation due to spurious legal claims is totally separate to that. We can be rightly angered at Mel, and we are, for all the above, and STILL be angry with MFC, WW, and through complicity, the EFL, for the continued vendetta, and it IS a vendetta against the club.

Our punishment, is unprecedented, and they’re still NOT happy. If that’s not vindictive and spiteful I don’t know what is. Pushing a fellow club into oblivion because you have a gripe at someone who’s no longer anywhere near the club. This is why children shouldn’t be allowed to own clubs. In fact I’m being unfair there, not even most children would behave in the way that pube-head and the ambulance chaser are. When an independent regulator is finally installed, the first thing they should do is kick this pair out of the game entirely. Football would be far better off without either of them.

Their ignorance on these matters is quite staggering, most (if not all) of the claims made their are entirely inaccurate - I'm not too bothered about those making the comments, they may well be somewhat intellectually disadvantaged but it amazes me that, outside of 1 or 2, nobody challenges them. Reading through the  "I have truly mixed feelings over Derby..." and other threads, I've picked out some golden nuggets.

'If you compare the punishment they have had to say Bolton or Bury it's absolutely nothing. Bury out of business, Bolton relegation, relegation again' Bolton were punished 3 points for missing a game in the 18/19 season, they went down without the help of those 3 points. They went in to admin at the end of the season resulting in a 12 point deduction for the following season. They then received a suspended 5 point penalty and suspended fine for missing 2 matches, generous! The season was curtailed and they went down. Again, they would have gone down without the impact of the punishment. The points deduction had no measurable impact on them. The poster is confusing punishment with the impact of the punishment.

1) 'I remember Gibson summed it up perfectly, Rules are in place in football for a reason, they're to be followed, and if somebody is guilty of breaking those rules then they should be punished accordingly'

2) They should be punished to the letter of the law

3) 'Repeat the above ad nauseum'

Yep, we've been punished, in line with the rules, 21 points in total don't you know?

And this, this is absolute grade A gold dust, no words needed.

'I was thinking an average of £18k/week for 25 players thats £450k plus managment team - £600k a week is £30m a year - our wage bill in 2019/20.

Based on Tom Lawrence on £37k/week I will up that to £25k/week average = £775k/week or £40m a year.'

It goes on and on and on

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, StaffsRam said:

-21 points, 5 transfer windows under embargo, £100k fine, administration, likely relegation. That’s all for Mel’s transgressions, and we’ve largely accepted that. The threat of liquidation due to spurious legal claims is totally separate to that. We can be rightly angered at Mel, and we are, for all the above, and STILL be angry with MFC, WW, and through complicity, the EFL, for the continued vendetta, and it IS a vendetta against the club.

Our punishment, is unprecedented, and they’re still NOT happy. If that’s not vindictive and spiteful I don’t know what is. Pushing a fellow club into oblivion because you have a gripe at someone who’s no longer anywhere near the club. This is why children shouldn’t be allowed to own clubs. In fact I’m being unfair there, not even most children would behave in the way that pube-head and the ambulance chaser are. When an independent regulator is finally installed, the first thing they should do is kick this pair out of the game entirely. Football would be far better off without either of them.

Not just 5 transfer windows, but 30 out of the last 45 months!

Luton had a transfer embargo in 2003, 10 point deduction in 07/08, and a 30 point deduction in 08/09, which was previously judged to be the most hard done-by club to not get kicked out of the league (such as Bury)

[RoyMac5]

10 minutes ago, Mihangel said:

Their ignorance on these matters is quite staggering, most (if not all) of the claims made their are entirely inaccurate - I'm not too bothered about those making the comments, they may well be somewhat intellectually disadvantaged but it amazes me that, outside of 1 or 2, nobody challenges them. Reading through the  "I have truly mixed feelings over Derby..." and other threads, I've picked out some golden nuggets.

'If you compare the punishment they have had to say Bolton or Bury it's absolutely nothing. Bury out of business, Bolton relegation, relegation again' Bolton were punished 3 points for missing a game in the 18/19 season, they went down without the help of those 3 points. They went in to admin at the end of the season resulting in a 12 point deduction for the following season. They then received a suspended 5 point penalty and suspended fine for missing 2 matches, generous! The season was curtailed and they went down. Again, they would have gone down without the impact of the punishment. The points deduction had no measurable impact on them. The poster is confusing punishment with the impact of the punishment.

1) 'I remember Gibson summed it up perfectly, Rules are in place in football for a reason, they're to be followed, and if somebody is guilty of breaking those rules then they should be punished accordingly'

2) They should be punished to the letter of the law

3) 'Repeat the above ad nauseum'

Yep, we've been punished, in line with the rules, 21 points in total don't you know?

And this, this is absolute grade A gold dust, no words needed.

'I was thinking an average of £18k/week for 25 players thats £450k plus managment team - £600k a week is £30m a year - our wage bill in 2019/20.

Based on Tom Lawrence on £37k/week I will up that to £25k/week average = £775k/week or £40m a year.'

It goes on and on and on

Skip over them, they're either idiots or trolls or both.  #COYR

Edited January 20, 2022 by RoyMac5

[TigerTedd]

People who don’t think we’ve been punished enough are like people who see someone caught on a tax technicality, and fined appropriately, but demanding the death penalty. 

isn’t ours the second biggest accumulated points deduction ever? On top of the embargoes and all the rest. That would be certain relegation for most clubs. But all clubs, no matter how many points they get deducted, have the right to fight in the pitch to overcome those points. Because we have the temerity to actually do that, they think we should be kicked out of the league entirely. 

If the aim of the game is to get us relegated, then just relegated us, end our season there and don’t Fanny about with points deductions. But if you’re not going to do that, then don’t get all mardy if, by some miracle, we’re able to overcome it fair and square, on the pitch, with kids. 

If we make it, they’ll make a film of this one day. 

[Ewetube]

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leeds-Derby-ffp-row-efl-3425497

 

Pubehead has a history of collusion, here he tried to get the Leeds chairman to join him in suing over the stadium sale.

 

Just goes to show the murky world of backroom deals and pile-ons we're dealing with.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Ewetube
Limited brain cells

[RadioactiveWaste]

7 minutes ago, Ewetube said:

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leeds-Derby-ffp-row-efl-3425497

 

Pubehead has a history of collusion, here he tried to get the Leeds chairman to join him in suing over the stadium sale.

 

Just goes to show the murky world of backroom deals and pile-ons we're dealing with.

Presumably the argument Leeds were disadvantaged is the Boro would have lost to Leeds in the play offs, sort of killing off his stance that Boro had a *insert fantasy odds* chance of promotion.

[Rambam]

9 minutes ago, Ewetube said:

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leeds-Derby-ffp-row-efl-3425497

 

Pubehead has a history of collusion, here he tried to get the Leeds chairman to join him in suing over the stadium sale.

 

Just goes to show the murky world of backroom deals and pile-ons we're dealing with.

But Gibson has done plenty of creative accounting himself. Plus the stadium sale was deemed kosher. 
That made him move on to the amortisation method, which was initially rubber stamped by the EFL. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Rambam

[RammingStone66]

4 minutes ago, Rambam said:

But Gibson has done plenty of creative accounting himself. Plus the stadium sale was deemed kosher. 
That made him move on to the amortisation method, which was initially rubber stamped by the EFL. 

It's annoying that the media seem to ignore that because it's much easier to call us cheaters and get clicks lol

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, Rambam said:

But Gibson has done plenty of creative accounting himself. Plus the stadium sale was deemed kosher. 
That made him move on to the amortisation method, which was initially rubber stamped by the EFL. 

Part of the narrative about we deserve everything we get is the "systemically cheating for years" - we used the accounting method for years because we told the EFL what we were doing and the EFL did not challenge it. Had it been challenged, it would not have been continuing (unless DCFC won the challenge).

No no no we just did it because we are wicked and it wasn't until St Brush of the Toilet came to show us the error of our ways that we stopped, but even then did repent to the satisfaction of the prophet of the misplaced pubes.

[Ghost of Clough]

Another look at the legitimacy of the claims...

Quote

 

22.1 3 years up to and including financial year 2016/17 - £46.76m loss, i.e. £7.76m in excess of the Upper Loss Threshold;

22.3 3 years up to and including financial year 2018/19 - £50.72m loss i.e. £11.72m in excess of the Upper Loss Threshold; and

22.4 4 years up to and including financial year 2020/21 - £40.96m loss i.e. £1.96m in excess of the Upper Loss Threshold.

 

Possible Penalty Scenarios

Scenario 1. Penalties should have been accounted for in the season following the breach:

• We fail the period up to 2017 = Deduction in 17/18
• We fail the period up to 2019 = Deduction in 19/20
• We fail the period up to 2021 = Deduction in 21/22

Boro are claiming for 18/19 whereas Wycombe are claiming for 20/21. The table in neither of those seasons would have been impacted if retrospective penalties were applied to the 'correct' season (as per the Birmingham and Reading cases)

 

Scenario 2. Penalties are awarded in one package once the figures are known for the period ending in 2021.

Final figures for the 20/21 season until the end of June 2021, over a month after the season had ended. These had to be audited, submitted and reviewed. Penalty wouldn't be applicable until the 21/22 season.

 

So why 18/19 and 20/21? Well, it can only be because those seasons in question were part of a period in which we failed P&S. As stated in Scenario 2, the full financial details were not known at the time the season had ended. An expedited review of the accounts meant the following season had already been well under way before a decision could have been reached.
Again, why 18/19 and 20/21 if they form part of a 3 or 4 year monitoring period, rather than any other season?

 

Then you have a whole host of questions, such as whether they have the right to claim against the club despite following the EFL's procedures, the size of the claims, the claim that they would have been 6th/avoided relegation if Derby were penalised, etc...

[RadioactiveWaste]

Just now, RammingStone66 said:

It's annoying that the media seem to ignore that because it's much easier to call us cheaters and get clicks lol

Nuance isn't a good click generation reporting style.

[Ewetube]

4 minutes ago, Rambam said:

But Gibson has done plenty of creative accounting himself. Plus the stadium sale was deemed kosher. 
That made him move on to the amortisation method, which was initially rubber stamped by the EFL. 

All true, just shows his modus operandi.

 

[Ghost of Clough]

17 minutes ago, Ewetube said:

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leeds-Derby-ffp-row-efl-3425497

 

Pubehead has a history of collusion, here he tried to get the Leeds chairman to join him in suing over the stadium sale.

 

Just goes to show the murky world of backroom deals and pile-ons we're dealing with.

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

[duncanjwitham]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

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

Imagine how awful you must be when you are making Leeds look classy by comparison...

[Ewetube]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

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

With the binoculars?

[Ghost of Clough]

1 minute ago, Ewetube said:

With the binoculars?

Probably just short sighted