Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[PistoldPete]

39 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I wasn't responding to either you or @Tamworthram, but since you've weighed in, I'll repeat that all I was setting out were lines of argument I would expect the EFL to take as to why administration was a choice of the owner, not solely caused by a "force majeure event" and hence why the penalty should not be reduced.

I was not predicting either the outcome, the legal arguments dcfc will make or the legal validity of the EFLs definition of force majeure.

The rest of the stuff was simply responding to a comment by the same original poster that no business' risk planning could have foreseen and hence responded to the event which was simply too wide ranging a statement to be factually correct, it was not a comparative argument about which type of business had it toughest. 

If its really 300k cost and the benefit of avoiding relegation is several £m then you only need a very small chance of success to make the appeal worthwhile on a mathematical basis, so why wouldn't you? 

Thanks van, I appreciate your comment wasn't responding to me, and that I am weighing in.. as I tend to do!

The stakes are very high, it's not just relegation to League One but potentially banishment from EFL altogether if the holding company is liquidated. EFL wil claim that Derby's liquidation was due to reckless spending and not due to covid, and will try and play the morality card when dishing out further punishment. But your last sentence is not how it works.

The administrators are profesional people , and so are the lawyers involved. There is no way they would bring a hopeless case just on the off chance it may succeed. They will believe, based on professional opinion, that they have a good chance of success.

Those who criticise or even mock Derby (not you of course) for raising the covid issue are just talklng out of their backsides. Did anyone criticse Wigan for raising it, even though they had a much weaker case than Derby?  

 

 

 

 

[Van der MoodHoover]

15 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Thanks van, I appreciate your comment wasn't responding to me, and that I am weighing in.. as I tend to do!

The stakes are very high, it's not just relegation to League One but potentially banishment from EFL altogether if the holding company is liquidated. EFL wil claim that Derby's liquidation was due to reckless spending and not due to covid, and will try and play the morality card when dishing out further punishment. But your last sentence is not how it works.

The administrators are profesional people , and so are the lawyers involved. There is no way they would bring a hopeless case just on the off chance it may succeed. They will believe, based on professional opinion, that they have a good chance of success.

Those who criticise or even mock Derby (not you of course) for raising the covid issue are just talklng out of their backsides. Did anyone criticse Wigan for raising it, even though they had a much weaker case than Derby?  

 

 

 

 

On a read back my previous response came across as unnecessarily chippy so thanks for not taking offence. 

The legal arguments will be interesting spectator sport but we're all just speculating. 

As to what the administrator believes the chance of success is, that's for them to know privately. Obviously they must be relentlessly upbeat in public. Again our respective views are different but that doesn't matter. 

The bigger risk for me is of more procrastination in the process. I hope they thought that through thoroughly so that we don't end up with a hollow victory as the cash runs out..... 

[PistoldPete]

10 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

On a read back my previous response came across as unnecessarily chippy so thanks for not taking offence. 

The legal arguments will be interesting spectator sport but we're all just speculating. 

As to what the administrator believes the chance of success is, that's for them to know privately. Obviously they must be relentlessly upbeat in public. Again our respective views are different but that doesn't matter. 

The bigger risk for me is of more procrastination in the process. I hope they thought that through thoroughly so that we don't end up with a hollow victory as the cash runs out..... 

The COVID defence will be addressed within a month I think . It is  very important issue and even if we lose it is right i think to make the point that COVID has had a particularly devastating effect on the club's finances and that our current troubles are by no means all self inflicted.

[Leeds Ram]

19 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Not to stray into politics, but the Supreme Court 100% did their job correctly by ensuring Brexit motions went through Parliament.

I think they did too but the judgement itself was controversial for many is more my point. 

[Woodley Ram]

7 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Surely you can in a very broad sense. No one expect their house to burn down but we all (or should) insure against it.

Insurance wouldn’t stop your house from burning down and you would only insure if there was a risk of it happening, for that you would have to know it’s a risk due to it happening to other people. With COVID that’s not the case

[Woodley Ram]

21 hours ago, alexxxxx said:

I'd argue it is as well however I've gone on what Mr maguire was saying on his pod this week.

Insurance companies have not been paying out on force majeure clauses. 

Interesting question about how much a chairman/shareholder should be expected to fund a club. 

I have issues with McGuire. I think with financial things he is good but this is a legal point. The insurance comment is a bit of a red herring. This is not to do with insurance policy or law, and it’s a different business. 

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Woodley Ram said:

I have issues with McGuire. I think with financial things he is good but this is a legal point. The insurance comment is a bit of a red herring. This is not to do with insurance policy or law, and it’s a different business. 

Yes. In many ways the insurance thing is the opposite. That  Force Majeure exclusion is to protect insurance companies from a wave of claims that could make them insolvent. It is a specific clause written by insurers to protect the insurers themselves. Whether it is being applied fairly is of course a different matter. 

The Force Majeure clause in the EFL Rules is to protect the clubs from suffering further penalties in the event of an insolvency event caused by a Force Majeure event not of their making . It is very specifically written and there is no doubt that as it is written in the EFL rules, COVID is a force majeuere event. Whether it caused Derby's insolvency event is another matter to be decided at the tribunal.

 

 

 

[B4ev6is]

I dont think we should never ever ever been given point ducation in freaking first place.

[Woodley Ram]

16 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Yes. In many ways the insurance thing is the opposite. That  Force Majeure exclusion is to protect insurance companies from a wave of claims that could make them insolvent. It is a specific clause written by insurers to protect the insurers themselves. Whether it is being applied fairly is of course a different matter. 

The Force Majeure clause in the EFL Rules is to protect the clubs from suffering further penalties in the event of an insolvency event caused by a Force Majeure event not of their making . It is very specifically written and there is no doubt that as it is written in the EFL rules, COVID is a force majeuere event. Whether it caused Derby's insolvency event is another matter to be decided at the tribunal.

 

 

 

Force majeure covers epidemics.  Its generally intended to include occurrences beyond the reasonable control of Derby and therefore would not cover any negligence by Derby. If we can show that if it was not for Covid we would have continued to operate we should win. Things like the HMRC debt don't help with this. But who is to say that we would not have an arrangement with HMRC to pay it off or that someone would have loaned the money. I think MSD said they would loan more money. 

The fact that others haven't gone into administration should be irrelevant as they will all have increased their debt because of Covid.  The fact that they have owners that can afford the additional debt and we cannot is not a valid reason to reject the appeal.  I can see why we feel that owners should be able to fund the additional £8.5m in the season but should we expect them to fund £20m?

The EFL seemed to have excepted that clubs will break FFP/P&S due to Covid surely that is because they have accepted Covid as something beyond the ability for clubs to predict or plan for (Force Majeure). what is the difference?    

 

 

[Rampage]

4 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Yes. In many ways the insurance thing is the opposite. That  Force Majeure exclusion is to protect insurance companies from a wave of claims that could make them insolvent. It is a specific clause written by insurers to protect the insurers themselves. Whether it is being applied fairly is of course a different matter. 

The Force Majeure clause in the EFL Rules is to protect the clubs from suffering further penalties in the event of an insolvency event caused by a Force Majeure event not of their making . It is very specifically written and there is no doubt that as it is written in the EFL rules, COVID is a force majeuere event. Whether it caused Derby's insolvency event is another matter to be decided at the tribunal.

 

 

 

Under really good ownership we could indeed again  become a Major Force.

[Rammiefan]

Anyone have any ideas when the appeal to the panel will be happening? Can’t seem to find any information on it. Thanks 

[Ghost of Clough]

6 minutes ago, Rammiefan said:

Anyone have any ideas when the appeal to the panel will be happening? Can’t seem to find any information on it. Thanks 

Be looking at the end of the month

[Rammiefan]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Be looking at the end of the month

Is that set in stone? Is there anything official? Just imagine lots of legal stuff to Get ready 

[Carl Sagan]

Not seen mention of this (but the threads are so long so apologies if I've missed it) but the Nixon thread seems the obvious place. He's saying the EFL have now demanded the Administrators take out loans to put actual money into the bank to cover Derby's commitments all the way through to the end of the season:

Previously the EFL said the Administrators had given them sufficient guarantees that the club would continue trading through to the season's end, and that was sufficient. Now they've changed their minds (they make this up as they go along) and have decided (as Nixon suggests) to treat Derby differently and force us to borrow more money at extortionate rates (and who will lend it to us?).

The EFL is clearly trying to make it much harder for us to find a buyer. Do they want us liquidated as a trophy "pour encourager les autres" (?) or do they just want to make damned sure we get relegated at least one division? It's hard to know. It's an absurdity that we can't demonstrate through projected revenues from gate receipts and TV revenues etc that we will be able to fulfil our fixtures.

[PistoldPete]

6 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Not seen mention of this (but the threads are so long so apologies if I've missed it) but the Nixon thread seems the obvious place. He's saying the EFL have now demanded the Administrators take out loans to put actual money into the bank to cover Derby's commitments all the way through to the end of the season:

Previously the EFL said the Administrators had given them sufficient guarantees that the club would continue trading through to the season's end, and that was sufficient. Now they've changed their minds (they make this up as they go along) and have decided (as Nixon suggests) to treat Derby differently and force us to borrow more money at extortionate rates (and who will lend it to us?).

The EFL is clearly trying to make it much harder for us to find a buyer. Do they want us liquidated as a trophy "pour encourager les autres" (?) or do they just want to make damned sure we get relegated at least one division? It's hard to know. It's an absurdity that we can't demonstrate through projected revenues from gate receipts and TV revenues etc that we will be able to fulfil our fixtures.

Why should we be asked to show EFL anything at this stage? The adminstrators have said that if a buyer cannot  be found before January there will be a fire sale. So we know that money can be raised and the wage bill reduced if it absolutely needs to be. 

Has Pauline Latham (or any other Derbyshire MP) had their meeting with the EFL? They need to be called out and pronto they are out of control.    

[Ram-Alf]

Looking at the video that loweman2 posted on the weekend thread, Niel Hallam says that most clubs do what we have been doing...but we always got caught..he said it's politics/political, We've been a thorn in the side of the football authoritys for over a centuary...the EFL in their wisdon feel they need to hammer us and are changing their stance as and when they choose, Of course this has nothing to do with DCFC appealing the 12 points deduction now has it...take the b astards on.

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Why should we be asked to show EFL anything at this stage? The adminstrators have said that if a buyer cannot  be found before January there will be a fire sale. So we know that money can be raised and the wage bill reduced if it absolutely needs to be. 

Has Pauline Latham (or any other Derbyshire MP) had their meeting with the EFL? They need to be called out and pronto they are out of control.    

Might be a good sign. Possibly agreement on points deductions is close and EFl have said: you do realise you only get out of embargo if you can show ongoing funding.       And if that is what is going on, surely a sale will unlock the problem. 
Or is that too much to hope ?

Edited October 18, 2021 by kevinhectoring

[PistoldPete]

51 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Might be a good sign. Possibly agreement on points deductions is close and EFl have said: you do realise you only get out of embargo if you can show ongoing funding.       And if that is what is going on, surely a sale will unlock the problem. 
Or is that too much to hope ?

We will not get out of embargo anytime soon. But a hard embargo means we cannot renew contracts except on reduced wages. So players will leave for nothing. .. as happened with waggy and Marriott. 
 

Come January we need to be out of that , or else we will be forced to sell players to avoid them leaving fur nothing.

[Chris_D]

10 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Not seen mention of this (but the threads are so long so apologies if I've missed it) but the Nixon thread seems the obvious place. He's saying the EFL have now demanded the Administrators take out loans to put actual money into the bank to cover Derby's commitments all the way through to the end of the season:

Previously the EFL said the Administrators had given them sufficient guarantees that the club would continue trading through to the season's end, and that was sufficient. Now they've changed their minds (they make this up as they go along) and have decided (as Nixon suggests) to treat Derby differently and force us to borrow more money at extortionate rates (and who will lend it to us?).

The EFL is clearly trying to make it much harder for us to find a buyer. Do they want us liquidated as a trophy "pour encourager les autres" (?) or do they just want to make damned sure we get relegated at least one division? It's hard to know. It's an absurdity that we can't demonstrate through projected revenues from gate receipts and TV revenues etc that we will be able to fulfil our fixtures.

when did the EFL say this about the sufficient guarantees? be interested how that was phrased / when they said it.

[jono]

On 16/10/2021 at 17:59, alexxxxx said:

Trouble is for the efl, I don’t think ‘other clubs haven’t gone in to administration’ is relevant to understanding why Derby went in to administration.

i suspect Derby won’t win the appeal, as the administrators might struggle to show that Derby’s finances were otherwise stable, particularly if the hmrc debt predates COVID.

also there is the question about whether COVID actually is a force majeure event. 

Undoubtedly Derby’s finances were very stretched prior to Covid. Can’t argue with that when we see the HMRC problems and the losses. We may, or may not have collapsed at some point due to that. No matter how likey,It is speculative .. would new owners have come in ? Would we have got salaries under control, would up and coming youth players attracted better fees ?  We’re the MSD loans short term that Mel intended to settle when he had liquidated other assets pre Covid ? .. who can say for certain ? 

But to suggest that an unprecedented global pandemic (that removes 70% of your revenue in a single event virtually overnight and probably devalues the owners capital at the same time)  isn’t force majeur is a joke. Really ?
There is only one answer to that question and it is .. yes it flipping was. It is also ridiculous to suggest otherwise.