Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[kevinhectoring]

10 hours ago, Taribo said:

I find the Wycombe thing so odd, even their owner is half-arsed about the legal challenge:

 

Couhig told the Sun: "We have put it in the hands of the lawyers. They have made claims against the administrators. They have been made aware of that. Who the heck knows what happens next. It’s hard enough understanding American bankruptcy so I’ve got to get into British bankruptcy laws now.

I don’t know if we call it legal action. But a claim has been presented and is with all of the others. I don’t know if it’s secured or unsecured. It’s in the big jumble of things Derby have to deal with.”

 

Classic dissembling   The US lawyer pretending it’s nothing to do with him, that he doesn’t understand it but that it’s all being driven by his lawyers. Scumbag 

[Guest]

I read some of his bile yesterday and today.  Mr. Pompous would be more appropriate.  The language he uses is designed to over inflate his intelligence and confuse but enthral the poor sods that lap it up on there. But over riding all of that is the thought that Jeez, I wish I had enough time to spend the time he does on the subject.  He really is a bitter old sausage isn’t he?

I wonder if he was around when Bristol nearly ceased to be?  About the same time as our financial problems near our centenary I think.

What drives such bitterness one wonders?  His club never winning anything?  living in the poop hole which is Bristol?

I dunno, but the stale old “But Derby cheated” just isn’t enough, there must be something else that’s up with him. ?‍♂️

Andrew

[PistoldPete]

7 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Classic dissembling   The US lawyer pretending it’s nothing to do with him, that he doesn’t understand it but that it’s all being driven by his lawyers. Scumbag 

He doesn’t know if he is a secured creditor? Well is there a legal charge registered against any of Derby’s assets? No? How could you not know this being a lawyer? 
 

Wycombe claim is as  an unsecured creditor , as unsecured as it gets floating in the sky like all the other pies. 

[sage]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

He doesn’t know if he is a secured creditor? Well is there a legal charge registered against any of Derby’s assets? No? How could you not know this being a lawyer? 
 

Wycombe claim is as  an unsecured creditor , as unsecured as it gets floating in the sky like all the other pies. 

I'm sending a claim in for having to watch Malone play. It has as much chance. 

 

[Chester40]

4 minutes ago, sage said:

I'm sending a claim in for having to watch Malone play. It has as much chance. 

 

The haircut is definitely grounds for punitive damages.

[Boycie]

1 hour ago, sage said:

I'm sending a claim in for having to watch Malone play. It has as much chance. 

 

Well he caught me with a flailing arm as he ran down the line as I sat in the east stand upper once, can I claim?

[Woodley Ram]

11 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Strange fella.  if you go on a stag do you get a set of mates you know, some of the grooms family and workmates you don't know and you have that risky moment, 800 miles from home for two days, that you might be stuck on the first round talking to the most boring man on the planet, who normally never leaves his mums basement and latches onto you talking about FFP for 8 hours straight.  Your weekends done before it starts and your hammered by 9'0 clock to numb the pain . 

Worse still, you'll be out randomly 5 years later and he'll tap you on the shoulder like he saw you yesterday and carry on the same conversation bar to bar till the clubs kick out. That's this guy.

They (BCFC) have 43 pages on Derby, wow. The pop bloke has an axe to grind. They have an issue with the possibility of the ground being bought back by the club and a significant discount. I can see the issue with that and how it looks. They think the EFL should not allow It, I’m not sure they can do that? They think we are not talking about a future business plan. We are and we want it to be sustainable. They also think we have people on big wages , we don’t and haven’t done for a couple of years. Year on year we have reduced the wage bill. They also think we have been cheating for years. We had one year when we overspent 

lastly they want to make fun of us when they come to PP. fine we will be waiting for you

 

[Chester40]

As I listened to the administrator yesterday I did find myself thinking 'why can't they be clearer which points deduction for which punishment they are talking about...is it the one for not paying our huge tax bill, not paying small businesses,  not paying transfers, not paying our own player's or for making our own accounting system that allowed us to get into this situation even after selling our ground back to ourselves '... not hard to see why the neutrals aren't that impressed. 

[tinman]

13 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

They (BCFC) have 43 pages on Derby, wow. The pop bloke has an axe to grind. They have an issue with the possibility of the ground being bought back by the club and a significant discount. I can see the issue with that and how it looks. They think the EFL should not allow It, I’m not sure they can do that? They think we are not talking about a future business plan. We are and we want it to be sustainable. They also think we have people on big wages , we don’t and haven’t done for a couple of years. Year on year we have reduced the wage bill. They also think we have been cheating for years. We had one year when we overspent 

lastly they want to make fun of us when they come to PP. fine we will be waiting for you

 

As Mel is no longer/will be no longer part of the club he can sell the ground to the new owners at whatever price he wants to and the EFL can't do anything about it as it's a separate party. 

If you owned the ground for instance then it's entirely down to you what price you sell it for. Whether it's below market rate, above market rate or you just give it away because you're kind hearted. 

[Pearl Ram]

26 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

They (BCFC) have 43 pages on Derby, wow. The pop bloke has an axe to grind. They have an issue with the possibility of the ground being bought back by the club and a significant discount. I can see the issue with that and how it looks. They think the EFL should not allow It, I’m not sure they can do that? They think we are not talking about a future business plan. We are and we want it to be sustainable. They also think we have people on big wages , we don’t and haven’t done for a couple of years. Year on year we have reduced the wage bill. They also think we have been cheating for years. We had one year when we overspent 

lastly they want to make fun of us when they come to PP. fine we will be waiting for you

 

I had an issue With Manchester City and West Ham getting brand new stadia on the cheap but guess what, as there was nothing I could do about it I got over it. 

He really needs to get a life. And by the way, didn’t Bristol City release 14 million shares the other year to head off a drop of financial turbulence ? 

They definitely released that many, maybe they did it for the craic I don’t know but I’m not convinced you release that amount as a goodwill gesture.

[Woodley Ram]

Well one thing we now know pop is reading our posts, not an issue I have read theirs. 
 

so pop, agree with you if PP is sold back at a discount, as Anne Widicombe would say it has something of the night about it. Still unsure  If the EFL have any power. Anyway this sis all conjecture at the moment.

yes we do want a sustainable business plan where we keep within FFfP limits 

Pop all we want is to be treated like others FFP ( we only had one high spending year) the rest we financed by sales. How can people talk about Reading getting a smaller  Deduction than us when they overspent by tens of millions, we didn’t 

we are trying to bypass anything but I  would not blame a new owner for trying to get a points  Deduction 

why don’t you come on this site and debate it

Edited October 28, 2021 by Woodley Ram

[Mick Harford]

@David You posted a breakdown (I think) of the reasons for our appeal, which made a lot of sense.

I don't know how to search for it, being an old git and all, was wondering if you could repost or give us a link please?

Could do with sending it on to someone

 

 

[CornwallRam]

3 hours ago, tinman said:

As Mel is no longer/will be no longer part of the club he can sell the ground to the new owners at whatever price he wants to and the EFL can't do anything about it as it's a separate party. 

If you owned the ground for instance then it's entirely down to you what price you sell it for. Whether it's below market rate, above market rate or you just give it away because you're kind hearted. 

That's not really the point. Nobody is saying that Mel can't sell the ground for any figure he chooses. They key part is what will that do to any FFP/P&S decisions/appeals/punishments.

Because the EFL love us so much and their rules allow them to revisit any decision, I can pretty much guarantee that they will look at any sale for less than say £70m. 

I actually don't expect they'd bring fresh charges because I think they'd be advised that Covid and administration have changed market conditions to such an extent that a current sale couldn't be used as evidence to question a previous valuation. 

[duncanjwitham]

28 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

That's not really the point. Nobody is saying that Mel can't sell the ground for any figure he chooses. They key part is what will that do to any FFP/P&S decisions/appeals/punishments.

Because the EFL love us so much and their rules allow them to revisit any decision, I can pretty much guarantee that they will look at any sale for less than say £70m. 

I actually don't expect they'd bring fresh charges because I think they'd be advised that Covid and administration have changed market conditions to such an extent that a current sale couldn't be used as evidence to question a previous valuation. 

I don't see what the EFL can actually complain about though (I'm not an expert etc).  Buying back the stadium is going to make no difference to our current and future FFP bottom line (£Xm in cash will go out and an £Xm-valued asset will appear on the books, so there's no change there).  The reason we *had* to sell for the independently-valued price was because it was a non-arms-length transaction (i.e. Mel Morris was on both ends of the deal) - that no longer applies as Morris will have no involvement in the club going forward.  So we can pay whatever we like, providing Morris is willing to sell it for that.  There's no requirement to sell at market value any more. 

The value we sold it at previously has already been signed-off by the EFL's tribunal process.  They've literally already been through the process of having that transaction challenged and it was found in our favour.  Whatever their predilection for revisiting decisions, they can't just re-run tribunals until they get the result they want.

[FindernRam]

21 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

they can't just re-run tribunals until they get the result they want

Are you sure???

 

 

[duncanjwitham]

6 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

Are you sure???

Pretty damn sure, although I can't actually find a direct reference to it in the EFL's rules (other than calling tribunal decisions "final" and explicitly detailing the process to appeal them).  If they could just have a do-over whenever they wanted, they would have done it when they decided not to appeal the £100k fine we got for the amortization issue.

The issue with the changing their mind on the stadium valuation and amortization policy was to do with them changing their advice as to how clubs should comply with FFP, it wasn't about changing the result of a tribunal.

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

3 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Pretty damn sure, although I can't actually find a direct reference to it in the EFL's rules (other than calling tribunal decisions "final" and explicitly detailing the process to appeal them).  If they could just have a do-over whenever they wanted, they would have done it when they decided not to appeal the £100k fine we got for the amortization issue.

The issue with the changing their mind on the stadium valuation and amortization policy was to do with them changing their advice as to how clubs should comply with FFP, it wasn't about changing the result of a tribunal.

Isn't re-running tribunals exactly what the did to Birmingham?

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Isn't re-running tribunals exactly what the did to Birmingham?

I don't *think* so. Wasn't their second tribunal a result of them not complying with the agreed business plan arising from the first tribunal?  So it was a new charge, not a re-run of the first one?

So obviously we could get charged again if there's an issue with our restated accounts etc, but I don't think there's anyway they can revisit the original sale of Pride Park.

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, duncanjwitham said:

I don't see what the EFL can actually complain about though (I'm not an expert etc).  Buying back the stadium is going to make no difference to our current and future FFP bottom line (£Xm in cash will go out and an £Xm-valued asset will appear on the books, so there's no change there).  The reason we *had* to sell for the independently-valued price was because it was a non-arms-length transaction (i.e. Mel Morris was on both ends of the deal) - that no longer applies as Morris will have no involvement in the club going forward.  So we can pay whatever we like, providing Morris is willing to sell it for that.  There's no requirement to sell at market value any more. 

The value we sold it at previously has already been signed-off by the EFL's tribunal process.  They've literally already been through the process of having that transaction challenged and it was found in our favour.  Whatever their predilection for revisiting decisions, they can't just re-run tribunals until they get the result they want.

If Mel Morris wants to gift PPS to us for nothing that’s up to him. He is no longer owner of the club.

Not sure he could do that as there is a loan secured on it but the value of PPS is irrelevant now.

it’s only relevance would be if there was a transaction with a connected party, which there isn’t. 
 

ps I’ve just seen Tinman  has said much the same.

Edited October 28, 2021 by PistoldPete

[Mucker1884]

2 hours ago, Mick Harford said:

@David You posted a breakdown (I think) of the reasons for our appeal, which made a lot of sense.

I don't know how to search for it, being an old git and all, was wondering if you could repost or give us a link please?

Could do with sending it on to someone

 

 

Hey old man.

It's not @David you want, it's @David.

You're welcome.

Regards,
Young Mucker.

??