Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Crewton]

I'm expecting the IDC to decide that it was only Flu after all.

[Alty_Ram]

Based on previous form, even if DCFC somehow won this the EFL would probably just appeal until they get the result that they/Gibson wanted.?

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Summer signings irrelevant as we need to have a competitive squad or risk relegation. Rejecting bids more problematic but would accepting those bids have made any difference  accepting £ 1 million for Buchanan would have delayed admin by what a month? So what? 

You cannot use "need to have a competitive squad" as an excuse. If that's what the administrators use to defend out transfer activity then the appeal be flat out rejected.

Enough players should have been sold to see us through to the point where we can avoid admin. Certainly long enough to get through to the next transfer window where further sales can be made if needed. Remember, the club statement said we're approaching a "financially sustainable" position.

[alexxxxx]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

You cannot use "need to have a competitive squad" as an excuse. If that's what the administrators use to defend out transfer activity then the appeal be flat out rejected.

Enough players should have been sold to see us through to the point where we can avoid admin. Certainly long enough to get through to the next transfer window where further sales can be made if needed. Remember, the club statement said we're approaching a "financially sustainable" position.

Who knows what the actual structure of the bid was. If its £1M upfront in cash then that's good but if its over 2 years or something it's not really useful to pay the bills that were due previously. 

[atherstoneram]

2 hours ago, ram59 said:

According to MM, contracts were signed and exchanged and to all intents and purposes the club had new owners, except for the fact that the money wasn't transferred. I would imagine that MM would have a case for breach of contract and would have proceeded against a British based businessman. Remember, the EFL gave this fake sheik the all clear, but don't seem to shoulder any responsibility just like in the Bury situation.

When you buy a new house, your solicitor will advise that you insure it from the day you exchange contracts, as that is the day that you become responsible for it.

And that is the crux of the matter. ACCORDING TO MM.... everything is according to what has been said by MM, how much is believable is open to conjecture.

[QuitYourJibbaJivin]

48 minutes ago, Alty_Ram said:

Based on previous form, even if DCFC somehow won this the EFL would probably just appeal until they get the result that they/Gibson wanted.?

According to Nixon (who was the first to say we’ve appealed) this panel is the final panel, their decision is final.

[Woodley Ram]

1 hour ago, basilrobbie said:

Good post Woodley.

I should have been clearer about my reference to Wigan ; I wasn't trying to claim they were analogous (they're not, in many ways), but I was saying that the COVID impact argument was one that they had tried and it had found no favour.

I quite agree that you can point to more sustained damage over a longer period that Wigan could - but so can everyone else, and that is part of my point. Your woes have been compounded by the recklessness of the previous owner and I see no prospect of the EFL wearing any argument that suggests that you shouldn't be held  to account for that (I know it is crap for the fans, but that is an entirely separate discussion). Not least because they will alienate all the other 71 if they try it - I don't think people want Derby to be placed in purgatory, but they DO expect you to face some consequences for doing a series of things that sought to give you an advantage that many felt was unfair.

Is this ideal? Of course not. Are you the only club with dirty hands? Absolutely not. But there is a perception out there that Mr. Morris' behaviour is particularly egregious and I think the EFL are well aware of that and will take account of it. I've no idea of what Gibson thinks he is doing, and he shouldn't be allowed to interfere. But there are lots of people who share his views about how Derby should be treated. 

The whole thing is a poo show, the fans bear the brunt of it and it demonstrates how broken our regulatory system really is. Tracey Crouch and her cavalry can't arrive soon enough for me. But I think your administrators are guilty of a major error of judgement here which will consume a lot of resources they can't afford, raise hopes that are likely to be dashed and are a huge distraction from the job they should be doing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think we are looking to be treated any different to any one else, in fact we think in some ways we are, but not in a good way. 

we accepted a deducted penalty for being 2 weeks late with the wages and found that it was similar to SWFC who hadn't paid wages  for months.

We were fined by the tribunal for the amortisation (which always had the players contracts as nil at the end). The EFL appealed against that not DCFC.

Mel and Pearce (CEO) should have been more transparent about that with the EFL and then things would have been clearer and quicker. I'm trying to pick my words carefully here, but I can see why people would look at the amortisation the way they do.

We had a mad 2 years where we overspent, the legacy was the residual high wages. Our wage bill has been on the small side for the last couple of years and our debt isn't that big when you look at others. I see figures banded around that are not true £35-40m wages bill, that's rubbish its more like £15m.

The stadium sale (not the first to do that) was accepted by the tribunal and not appealed by the EFL.

Our issue re administration is 2 things we have lost the ability to generate income to satisfy the debts  due to Covid and Mel has said he cannot pay the difference. Will we win the appeal, I would say its no more than 50/50, but as Wigan did we have a right to try. 

Re the amortisation process, most of the time was due to the EFL not us. 

Re P&S/FFP, this is the outcome of the tribunal.  By all accounts we are not over by much (£4-8m), yet we are looking at 9 points + 3 suspended. whereas Reading who are about £50m over are looking at 6 points, BCFC 7 points for being £15m over. SWFC 6 points for larger.

If we have broken the rules and we have, we should be punished but with FFP it needs to be inline with others and it doesn't feel that way. With administration I have 2 feelings, the first is as you put it we are caught fair and square and the other is that there is an appeal system and reasons for having a reduction. We have a case so why not try. The difference could be the staying up and regulation.  

We have 3 things that we have been convicted of. Amortisation, Administration and FFP. We have accepted the penalty for the first. Lets see about the second and third but yes we would like to be treated the same as others.

We might just overturn the 12 points but not anymore.  If we get more than I fear that Derby will play their academy and set up for next year in L1. Unfortunately that would not be good for the EFL.

Lets see 

.

[i-Ram]

2 hours ago, ram59 said:

According to MM, contracts were signed and exchanged and to all intents and purposes the club had new owners, except for the fact that the money wasn't transferred. I would imagine that MM would have a case for breach of contract and would have proceeded against a British based businessman. Remember, the EFL gave this fake sheik the all clear, but don't seem to shoulder any responsibility just like in the Bury situation.

When you buy a new house, your solicitor will advise that you insure it from the day you exchange contracts, as that is the day that you become responsible for it.

I bet your solicitor wouldn't say stop paying the mortgage and other household bills though

.

[vonwright]

I'm not sure it works to argue 'Yeah we were completely reckless and had run up huge debts but Covid tipped us over the edge and forced us into administration'. Putting aside the fact we weren't _forced_ into administration (which will be a massive issue in itself), the force majeure clause as drafted by the EFL states that we need to prove adminstration occurred 'solely as a result of a FM event'. 

It's not a great analogy but imagine our house is the only one on the street that gets destroyed after a hurricane. Turns out our house was built on terrible foundations and for years we'd failed to carry out the structural repairs necessary to make it more secure (in fact it had got worse). Plus the house didn't actually fall down - we just decided that the extra damage caused by the hurricane has made it too much of a money pit for us to continue with it, and we decided to pull it down ourselves. In that case saying the hurricane was the sole reason for the house coming down just seems... wrong. (And arguing that the other houses on the street were on almost-but-not-quite-as-dodgy foundations doesn't help either!)

Edited October 11, 2021 by vonwright

[Ambitious]

We will see, of course, but it seems like a daft way to piss £300k up the wall IMO. 

[ram59]

45 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I bet your solicitor wouldn't say stop paying the mortgage and other household bills though

.

I wouldn't be paying the new householders bills for him, like the council tax paid in advance, would you?

[JPRamFan]

Do you think the administrators are appealing this decision, not just because they want the points reduced, but because the Covid impact might have a knock on effect on possible further points deductions down the line for the 19/20, 20/21 accounts? 

If we somehow win this case, we could point towards missing out on 20 mil worth of revenue when we have to submit these accounts 

[RoyMac5]

43 minutes ago, vonwright said:

...It's not a great analogy but imagine our house is the only one on the street that gets destroyed after a hurricane. Turns out our house was built on terrible foundations and for years we'd failed to carry out the structural repairs necessary to make it more secure (in fact it had got worse). Plus the house didn't actually fall down - we just decided that the extra damage caused by the hurricane has made it too much of a money pit for us to continue with it, and we decided to pull it down ourselves. In that case saying the hurricane was the sole reason for the house coming down just seems... wrong. (And arguing that the other houses on the street were on almost-but-not-quite-as-dodgy foundations doesn't help either!)

I'm sure Mel will be saying that he was able to repair the foundations and had started to do that with the employment of Cocu. The aim to rely more on Academy players eventually. Plus the surveyor had previously said the foundations were sound and we'd built the extra additions because of that.

Edited October 11, 2021 by RoyMac5

[atherstoneram]

5 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I'm sure Mel will be saying that he was able to repair the foundations and had started to do that with the employment of Cocu. The aim to rely more on Academy players eventually. Plus the surveyor had previously said the foundations were sound and we'd built the extra additions because of that.

So he decides to get rid of the builder because the building work wasn't going as quick as he hoped

[Sparkle]

On 10/10/2021 at 09:23, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Waste of 300k that could have been used to keep people in jobs.

No chance we win this appeal given the state of our finances. To say COVID is the sole reason we are where we are is just false.

I would suggest all the prospective new owners are saying that you simply have to appeal the 12 point deduction 

[vonwright]

12 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I'm sure Mel will be saying that he was able to repair the foundations and had started to do that with the employment of Cocu. The aim to rely more on Academy players eventually. Plus the surveyor had previously said the foundations were sound and we'd built the extra additions because of that.

Yeah, it will be interesting to hear it played out, and we might learn a bit more about how the club was run. My feeling is that when the debts and spending and so on are laid bare it's going to be hard to show we were an essentially sound and sustainable business that was flattened by COVID (and COVID alone) to the point where we had no choice but administration. But freely admit I could be wrong! 

Edited October 11, 2021 by vonwright

[Crewton]

1 hour ago, vonwright said:

I'm not sure it works to argue 'Yeah we were completely reckless and had run up huge debts but Covid tipped us over the edge and forced us into administration'. Putting aside the fact we weren't _forced_ into administration (which will be a massive issue in itself), the force majeure clause as drafted by the EFL states that we need to prove adminstration occurred 'solely as a result of a FM event'. 

It's not a great analogy but imagine our house is the only one on the street that gets destroyed after a hurricane. Turns out our house was built on terrible foundations and for years we'd failed to carry out the structural repairs necessary to make it more secure (in fact it had got worse). Plus the house didn't actually fall down - we just decided that the extra damage caused by the hurricane has made it too much of a money pit for us to continue with it, and we decided to pull it down ourselves. In that case saying the hurricane was the sole reason for the house coming down just seems... wrong. (And arguing that the other houses on the street were on almost-but-not-quite-as-dodgy foundations doesn't help either!)

I prefer the analogy where ours is the only house that gets struck by lightning out of a clear blue sky, and collapses.

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, vonwright said:

Yeah, it will be interesting to hear it played out, and we might learn a bit more about how the club was run. My feeling is that when the debts and spending and so on are laid bare it's going to be hard to show we were an essentially sound and sustainable business that was flattened by COVID (and COVID alone) to the point where we had no choice but administration. But freely admit I could be wrong! 

I don't see what isn't believable about the fact that Mel was mostly financing the club from income from the club. He might have been making up the shortfall - which would have been less in the past couple of seasons. But he couldn't have expected to cover the shortfall and the missing income?

[Sparkle]

20 hours ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

All valid points.

But these clubs with parachute payments have much much bigger wage bills than ours, the club's coming up would have increased their wage bill and spent money in transfers. 

Yes we could have been affected more based on our attendances being sold high and how heavily reliant on ticket sales we are. But so is everyone.

Why aren't Forest in administration because of Covid? Same length of time in this League, no parachute payments, big attendances. No sign of them going into administration. 

Isn’t an appeal about how covid affected us because the appeal is about us not other clubs 

[Eddie]

I just hope it's not the last desperate roll of the dice, i.e. if this doesn't work, we're finished as a club.