Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Crewton]

I'm not saying the outcome of our appeal will be any different, but the loss to DCFC of not being able to admit fans, the drop in ST revenue, the matchday commercial and retail income, sponsorship etc etc dwarfs the losses that Wigan experienced. 

I must say also that Kieran Maguire's comment about the response of insurers to the claims of companies holding business interruption insurance is so laughable that I almost can't believe an alleged academic came out with it. I believe that a few insurers have already had their arses kicked in Court over their disgraceful behaviour and I expect more will follow, so keep embarrassing yourself Kieran. 

[Rev]

7 hours ago, Foreveram said:

Well we won’t get fooled again.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

Welcome back Sam!

[G STAR RAM]

21 hours ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Not surprising really after Covid, peoples habits have changed a bit I guess. Also the team is bottom of the league and getting deducted points. Hardly conducive to big attendances. Plus hasn't there been ticket office chaos/season ticket? I tried to buy a ticket previously it had been taken off sale, days before a match- bizarre. 

The exact reason why you would want more fans through the gates.

I wonder if this change of habit and ticket chaos would stop people from getting tickets if we got to Wembley this season?

Think we both know the answer to that.

[G STAR RAM]

16 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

When was the last time we have sold 35 - 40 thousand in total for a home game let alone “in hours”?

I was on about our Wembley trips.

[PistoldPete]

8 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

A bit worrying, this extract. How is our position different ? 

Well let's just say Wigan's owner did not come out of it well. Whatever the failings of Morris he is bound to come across better and may explain why he had to pull the plug. Wigan's owner was based in Hong Kong and didnt give any reliable evidence. He was trashed by the tribunal. 

The result could well be the same as Wigan, but clearly the cause of our administration will not be the historic overspending as the extract makes clear, it was not the proximate cause.

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by PistoldPete

[BramcoteRam84]

11 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

From the Wigan appeal (para 62)

"It was
only when the owner pulled the plug that it sank."

 

In Wigan’s case the ownership situation was the fundamental cause so understand this stance, however the paragraph you quoted ending in this statement is concerning for our case, as it seemingly indicates they don’t apply any mitigation to the benefactor model in football. Covid contributed to our situation but we wouldn’t have gone into administration if Mel didn’t pull the plug. 
 

If this is the position then can’t see how we can succeed, and it would effectively mean there is no valid mitigation to going into administration as if all owners pulled out in the championship then 95% of clubs would suffer our fate.

Let’s hope this position is derived from the unique circumstances of Wycombe’s case and not a general assumption being applied across all such cases.

[Tyler Durden]

34 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

In Wigan’s case the ownership situation was the fundamental cause so understand this stance, however the paragraph you quoted ending in this statement is concerning for our case, as it seemingly indicates they don’t apply any mitigation to the benefactor model in football. Covid contributed to our situation but we wouldn’t have gone into administration if Mel didn’t pull the plug. 
 

If this is the position then can’t see how we can succeed, and it would effectively mean there is no valid mitigation to going into administration as if all owners pulled out in the championship then 95% of clubs would suffer our fate.

Let’s hope this position is derived from the unique circumstances of Wycombe’s case and not a general assumption being applied across all such cases.

Its a quite simplistic but compelling argument from the EFL - we only went into administration as the owner pulled the plug. 

[RoyMac5]

10 hours ago, winktheram said:

Interestingly, Maguire's latest podcast seems to suggest we could have reasonably forseen Covid, as SARS, Ebola and the like have been around so it was I inevitable that a global pandemic would hit and we should have been prepared. And Covid is not a force majure event. The man's a menace. 

 

FFS if he can foretell such events ask him for the Euro Lottery numbers will you?! What a ducking utter exceedingly annoying prat.

[RoyMac5]

11 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Its a quite simplistic but compelling argument from the EFL - we only went into administration as the owner pulled the plug. 

Can we legally keep trading if we aren’t financially viable?

[kevinhectoring]

9 hours ago, Crewton said:

I'm not saying the outcome of our appeal will be any different, but the loss to DCFC of not being able to admit fans, the drop in ST revenue, the matchday commercial and retail income, sponsorship etc etc dwarfs the losses that Wigan experienced. 

I must say also that Kieran Maguire's comment about the response of insurers to the claims of companies holding business interruption insurance is so laughable that I almost can't believe an alleged academic came out with it. I believe that a few insurers have already had their arses kicked in Court over their disgraceful behaviour and I expect more will follow, so keep embarrassing yourself Kieran. 

I agree our case is very different on the facts. But the EFL talk about the ‘benefactor’ model. The Wigan extract posted by @PistoldPete suggests the panel decided that where you have that model and where the owner decides not to continue to fund, then that is the cause of the insolvency. In our case, EFL can say: it’s obvious MOrris was the cause. Because the club stayed out of insolvency for 18 months of covid, whilst he continued to fund. (I think it’s a daft way of looking at it btw)

[Tamworthram]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I was on about our Wembley trips.

but as I said, hardly a fair comparison to how sales are going now. For every team in the country (barring the big six for whom it must get a bit boring and expensive) a Wembley final brings out all the casual supporters. If we reached a Wembley final now you’d see the same level of demand.

[Ram-Alf]

24 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Can we legally keep trading if we aren’t financially viable?

financially viable...meaning spending more than coming in, Yes if you have loans, I believe there are soft loans that have been taken up, 32Red have brought forward their payments, Also it was reported that there was maybe a local businessman that has stumped up some loot,.

When outgoings exceed incomings and there is no more corners to turn...then Liquidation is at the end of the straight.

[RoyMac5]

26 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I agree our case is very different on the facts. But the EFL talk about the ‘benefactor’ model. The Wigan extract posted by @PistoldPete suggests the panel decided that where you have that model and where the owner decides not to continue to fund, then that is the cause of the insolvency. In our case, EFL can say: it’s obvious MOrris was the cause. Because the club stayed out of insolvency for 18 months of covid, whilst he continued to fund. (I think it’s a daft way of looking at it btw)

Continue to fund, but surely it would be acceptable to say ‘continue to fund at the same level of financial help’? And so covid meant greater financial assistance than could have been expected or even afforded, at any point even looking back historically at our finances under Mel?

[Crewton]

32 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I agree our case is very different on the facts. But the EFL talk about the ‘benefactor’ model. The Wigan extract posted by @PistoldPete suggests the panel decided that where you have that model and where the owner decides not to continue to fund, then that is the cause of the insolvency. In our case, EFL can say: it’s obvious MOrris was the cause. Because the club stayed out of insolvency for 18 months of covid, whilst he continued to fund. (I think it’s a daft way of looking at it btw)

Bizarre isn't it, because the alternative model would probably have put the company into Administration sooner, unless the club was able to borrow the funds needed to fill the funding gap.

[kevinhectoring]

8 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Continue to fund, but surely it would be acceptable to say ‘continue to fund at the same level of financial help’? And so covid meant greater financial assistance than could have been expected or even afforded, at any point even looking back historically at our finances under Mel?

Good point but you’d want to take a bravery pill before predicting the result with any certainty. 

[jono]

1 hour ago, Tyler Durden said:

Its a quite simplistic but compelling argument from the EFL - we only went into administration as the owner pulled the plug. 

True, but consider this. The owner pulled the plug because Covid had reduced his own personal / business worth (outside the realm of DCFC)  to the extent that he had to pull the plug as he could no longer find at pre covid levels

[Mostyn6]

1 hour ago, Tyler Durden said:

Its a quite simplistic but compelling argument from the EFL - we only went into administration as the owner pulled the plug. 

Nope wrong. The plug was no longer big enough for the sink drainhole. 
 

in simplistic terms, putting in the (for argument sake) £1m a month - the plug - which was keeping the club going pre-Covid, would not have kept the club going post-Covid. 

[basilrobbie]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

FFS if he can foretell such events ask him for the Euro Lottery numbers will you?! What a ducking utter exceedingly annoying prat.

The other way of looking at it is that he is relatively objective and professionally well placed to form judgements. How many fans can say the same?

I don't really understand the vitriol, given that through his Podcast he does rather more to inform you an your own club management has historically done. He's also better placed to perceive how your club are regarded than you are (understandably, it's not a criticism per se). Do you not think that there is a strong element of you not wanting to hear the message?

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

I agree our case is very different on the facts. But the EFL talk about the ‘benefactor’ model. The Wigan extract posted by @PistoldPete suggests the panel decided that where you have that model and where the owner decides not to continue to fund, then that is the cause of the insolvency. In our case, EFL can say: it’s obvious MOrris was the cause. Because the club stayed out of insolvency for 18 months of covid, whilst he continued to fund. (I think it’s a daft way of looking at it btw)

In my view saying the owner ran out of funds and that is why you went into administration is a tautology. The administrators I guess could say he had no choice .. if debts are mounting what else can an owner do? he's already getting slagged off for letting the HMRC debt build up, so maybe he should have done it sooner?. 

Wigan's owner was not a benefactor.. he gave up after a few weeks.

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

In my head this appeal is simple.

Would we have gone in to administration had the pandemic not happened? No.

Is the pandemic the only reason we ended up going in to administration? No.

The way our club has been run as a business meant we were much less resilient to external factors than other clubs and this is why I believe the appeal is a waste of time. The EFL or whoever looks at this will simply point out that we were a basket case going in to the pandemic, so it's our own fault we were unable to survive it.

Edited October 22, 2021 by JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta