Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[hintonsboots]

Not sure if already posted ?

[RadioactiveWaste]

6 hours ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said:

It like having a wired proxy mr pop in here having his OTIB post and ours copied/quoted backwards and forward. Why don’t we let him rejoin (assume banned). To make the debate less complex.?

Some of us are still fighting to have @eezzeetigerb brought back and to allow these less fortunate posters to come out of the forest thread and suckle the sweet nourishment of the internet forum of milk and honey.

An end to gumper apartheid!

 

[glyn1957]

8 hours ago, Woodley Ram said:

Hi Pop,

 

I see you have responded to me on the BCFC website

I have quoted you below so everyone can read.

Happy to respond to a constructive post by a poster on there. I can't join btw, not allowed. Possibly not a surprise given some of my past rants...emotive or similar but also biting back as I do bite back when I get unwarranted flak as most people would.

  Quote

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

Suppose for both parties the worse thing about being quoted or not spoken about might be not being quoted or spoken about. 

  Quote

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.

It would be an interesting test case IMO. Not sure the EFL would appreciate it to say the least and a new owner getting off to a bad start with the EFL couldn't be positive- although I wonder if they could separate out the two bits as part of the business plan.

  Quote

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

Yep, spend up to remaining headroom once all outstanding issues sorted- talking about Jan, seems fair to me. There's a lot to sort though and I'm not even talking about the ground here. we don't want boom and bust its not good for the old ticker.  We had one stupid year where we signed players for large sums and large wages and didn't get  return on them.  The others years we have more or less traded on a net basis.  We have for the last two years operated on a small operating budget. Wages are probably circa £15m. The damage had already been done. 

  Quote

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  (WR)

You'll find no arguments from me on Reading- I was criticising Reading a year and a half ago! Plus Stoke I have to question how the hell they justify that £30m Impairment, hopefully the EFL are scrutinising each and every penny of that. Reading, the thing there is that as with all clubs the 2019/20 and the 2020/21 results are added and halved. On the 3 years to 2019/20 in isolation, absolutely but we don't know how the 2020/21 might look but I thought they should be nailed for a 9 pts, although some reports said 6 and a further 3 suspended- reports suggested that Reading owning up and cooperating has helped.  We (Mel) only submitted our accounts for a negative FFP after the immortalisation issue and did it on time. we had submitted them before but rightly was asked to submit them again showing a straight line methodology. (Note here. All player valuations ended in zero and didn't have a residual amount. The issue was that the amortisation was done more on a bell curve with higher amounts up front rather than on a straight line). We have since been in discussion (like Reading) with the EFL. The only issue we had was the appeal and Mel not being quiet. You shouldn't be penalised for that.  I think Reading should get more they are so far over is ridicules

I agree the Covid impairment and how losses affect FFP (P&S) is a worry. The EFL need to come out with a rational of how they are dealing with it. (Advertising income, gate receipts, loss of entertainment other commercial activity) this should be hard as you should be able to see the loss from auditing previous years income. Also re Covid, the only way they can deduct amounts from FFP consideration is if Covid was a/is a Force Majeure. Otherwise teams should have planned for it and have taken steps to ensure that they remain within FFP (you can see where I am going here re admin appeal). BCFC must have lost £millions over the last couple of years so if you cannot deduct say the loss of £15-20m,ish from your FFP calculation then you will also be hit with an FFP points deduction?

A difference between Derby and Reading is that the Derby 9 with 3 more suspended is deemed to be a final settlement or proposed as such- whereas the Reading one could just be a first instalment, I saw that as well as a deduction, renewal of players on existing terms could prove difficult and they could face a further deduction in the next year or 2. If they get a deduction and sell Swift in Jan say, they could slide into real issues on the pitch? Saw a stat other day, he has chipped in with goals or assists about 2/3 of the clubs League goals or 60%, something..out of contract in the summer! Think Blackburn and renewal might pose an issue with quite a few key assets although selling Armstrong has surely helped them to ease things.

A troubling thing about Reading too? Rahman and Drinkwater loans, covered minimum 90% by Chelsea! Ridiculous! Their individual wage cap=£8.5k per week x 6 players, those 2 combined wages £170k so...no loan fees payable. Also suggest that for that wage level, Dann and Halilovic look suspiciously good players albeit signed on frees. I agree, add Fulham not paying for Harry Wilson for 2 years and others will also be pushing the boundaries with FFP and the ethics of it.

  Quote

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

Do you mean removed or reduced? Suppose a new owner might try but given that the burden of failure with these issues lies with the club and not the owner, there is an an attempt at bypassing arguably- not now so much but the delays of accounts to the EFL, the alleged procedural defences in May 2021, to sell as a Championship club was possible. Sorry spell check on my ipad. we are not trying to bypass anything. If we are able to use the rules to get a reduction of points then that's ok. After all isn't that what other clubs have done Birmingham, Sheffield Wednesday and it seems Reading?

  Quote

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

Would if I could!

 

I would love to debate with this gentleman but getting on the forum seems impossible ,i believe i answer the security question correctly but no go .

[Pearl Ram]

6 minutes ago, glyn1957 said:

I would love to debate with this gentleman but getting on the forum seems impossible ,i believe i answer the security question correctly but no go .

I got in there Glyn, only posted twice mind - what I’m saying is, if I can get on there anybody can. I am to IT what Mel Morris is to responsible football club ownership. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

18 minutes ago, glyn1957 said:

I would love to debate with this gentleman but getting on the forum seems impossible ,i believe i answer the security question correctly but no go .

Did you keep answering "The one team in Bristol is?" with Bristol Rovers?

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Did you keep answering "The one team in Bristol is?" with Bristol Rovers?

Q1) In what year did the Wurzels have a hit I am Zeider drinker Oo arr oo arr ay?

Q2) In Cockney rhyming slang, what part of the female anatomy is refered to as "Bristols"?

Q3)  In what year did Bristol City win their first top flight League title? (trick question)

 

[Woodley Ram]

16 hours ago, Pearl Ram said:

I got in there Glyn, only posted twice mind - what I’m saying is, if I can get on there anybody can. I am to IT what Mel Morris is to responsible football club ownership. 

I put some of the supporters of other clubs in the same bracket as the current climate change protestors, ill informed and unable to see anything other than their own views which (as the information is limited) is a bit blinkered. I know they will say the same about us and yes in some cases that is true.

This is what I have picked up especially from the BCFC forum.

1. The amortisation was very bad and the fine was not good enough. The EFL needs to take this into account when any other FFP penalties are issues.
2. We got away with murder with the sale of the stadium and have cheated. IF and only if the stadium is sold to the new owner at a discounted rate then we should be sent back to a tribunal for possible points deductions. Not sure they can do that, isn't there a double jeopardy law for this?? If that happened (the sale back to new owners) I can understand why people wouldn't be happy with that. Also a point here the EFL did originally sign it off and asked for a small reduction which we adhered to. 
3.  We have cheated for years, overspent for years and we should have our feet put to the fire for it, made an example. Well the amortisation whilst legal for other businesses is not for the EFL. We didn't hide the amortisation (that's how it as picked up) but we could have been a lot clearer (that's why the fine was low).
4. We haven't been trying it on with the EFL for years. They took us to a tribunal and lost, they appealed and won the amortisation part. From this we had to resubmit the accounts which we did.
5. We didn't submit our accounts to the EFL on time, agreed that's because of the appeal and redoing them. however we could have been quicker (just my point of view), but it really wouldn't have been that much quicker.   
6. We didn't pay transfer fees on time. Yep not the only ones to do that
7. We didn't pay wages on time. Yep about 3 weeks late and we received a penalty for that. Others were far worse (SWFC)
8. We didn't pay HMRC, agreed and we got a transfer embargo for that (and the others)
9. We went into administration and appealed. Sorry are we not allowed to do that? Isn't that in the rules or doesn't that apply to us? Do we have a case, yes, will we win probably not. Also our case is different than Wigan's and I would say stronger.
10. We should get a bigger deduction than Reading because of not paying bills (HMRC) and the amortisation. Even though they have a far bigger FFP over spend and I don't really care if they are greatly overspent next season. 
11. We need a sustainable business plan. I agree and our operating costs have been greatly reduced with a wage bill in the bottom 3-4 in the Championship. Everyone should have aa sustainable business plan. The Gumps and BCFC have been lucky that they have sold players for really large sums, if they hadn't they would be in the FFP naughty room.
12. Lets talk Covid. If teams are going to get debts written off for FFP(I think Stoke was +£30m) due to Covid then it has to be due to a Force Majore event, which I believe Covid is.  You cannot use it for that but not for the reason why we are in administration. If Covid was the reason (and I am saying If) then we should not get a penalty. The fact others haven't gone the same way is irrelevant. there is no law in the land that states that an owner has to cover very large losses and if he cannot for what ever reason then you go bust. Trust me I would rather we were never in this situation.
13. Wycombe and Gibson asking for money. Fine , I still don't think its going anywhere. It it does I think QPR and Aston Villa will still be in the statute of limitations window to sue both of them for going up instead of us. I think that (play off finals) would be a stronger and bigger case (£100m each ). I do however think that this is not the way to go.
14. people need to look at other things, Readings FFP  losses, who they have signed for peanuts (effectively a free loan), Fulham deferring payment of Wilson for 2 years.
15. All we ask for is a level playing field based on facts and not conjecture 

[Jimbo Ram]

35 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

I put some of the supporters of other clubs in the same bracket as the current climate change protestors, ill informed and unable to see anything other than their own views which (as the information is limited) is a bit blinkered. I know they will say the same about us and yes in some cases that is true.

This is what I have picked up especially from the BCFC forum.

1. The amortisation was very bad and the fine was not good enough. The EFL needs to take this into account when any other FFP penalties are issues.
2. We got away with murder with the sale of the stadium and have cheated. IF and only if the stadium is sold to the new owner at a discounted rate then we should be sent back to a tribunal for possible points deductions. Not sure they can do that, isn't there a double jeopardy law for this?? If that happened (the sale back to new owners) I can understand why people wouldn't be happy with that. Also a point here the EFL did originally sign it off and asked for a small reduction which we adhered to. 
3.  We have cheated for years, overspent for years and we should have our feet put to the fire for it, made an example. Well the amortisation whilst legal for other businesses is not for the EFL. We didn't hide the amortisation (that's how it as picked up) but we could have been a lot clearer (that's why the fine was low).
4. We haven't been trying it on with the EFL for years. They took us to a tribunal and lost, they appealed and won the amortisation part. From this we had to resubmit the accounts which we did.
5. We didn't submit our accounts to the EFL on time, agreed that's because of the appeal and redoing them. however we could have been quicker (just my point of view), but it really wouldn't have been that much quicker.   
6. We didn't pay transfer fees on time. Yep not the only ones to do that
7. We didn't pay wages on time. Yep about 3 weeks late and we received a penalty for that. Others were far worse (SWFC)
8. We didn't pay HMRC, agreed and we got a transfer embargo for that (and the others)
9. We went into administration and appealed. Sorry are we not allowed to do that? Isn't that in the rules or doesn't that apply to us? Do we have a case, yes, will we win probably not. Also our case is different than Wigan's and I would say stronger.
10. We should get a bigger deduction than Reading because of not paying bills (HMRC) and the amortisation. Even though they have a far bigger FFP over spend and I don't really care if they are greatly overspent next season. 
11. We need a sustainable business plan. I agree and our operating costs have been greatly reduced with a wage bill in the bottom 3-4 in the Championship. Everyone should have aa sustainable business plan. The Gumps and BCFC have been lucky that they have sold players for really large sums, if they hadn't they would be in the FFP naughty room.
12. Lets talk Covid. If teams are going to get debts written off for FFP(I think Stoke was +£30m) due to Covid then it has to be due to a Force Majore event, which I believe Covid is.  You cannot use it for that but not for the reason why we are in administration. If Covid was the reason (and I am saying If) then we should not get a penalty. The fact others haven't gone the same way is irrelevant. there is no law in the land that states that an owner has to cover very large losses and if he cannot for what ever reason then you go bust. Trust me I would rather we were never in this situation.
13. Wycombe and Gibson asking for money. Fine , I still don't think its going anywhere. It it does I think QPR and Aston Villa will still be in the statute of limitations window to sue both of them for going up instead of us. I think that (play off finals) would be a stronger and bigger case (£100m each ). I do however think that this is not the way to go.
14. people need to look at other things, Readings FFP  losses, who they have signed for peanuts (effectively a free loan), Fulham deferring payment of Wilson for 2 years.
15. All we ask for is a level playing field based on facts and not conjecture 

Nice little synopsis Woodley but lacking detail ?

[Comrade 86]

On 29/10/2021 at 11:14, kevinhectoring said:

I guess that if there were other creditors of the stadium owning co he could get into hot water if they went unpaid by reason of the company selling the asset for peanuts    

I did wonder about this myself but GELLAW 101, is not trading nor does it have any creditors. Obviously with it not being part of the administration process, the only question remaining is whether it should be. Setting moral aspects aside, from a legal standpoint, it appears that the creditors have no claim. I'd assume that this is precisely why the holding company and subsidiaries were set up in this manner. Worth noting that GELLAW 101 was dormant prior to the filing of the 2019 tax exemption which perhaps confirms this thinking?

 

[PistoldPete]

22 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I did wonder about this myself but GELLAW 101, is not trading nor does it have any creditors. Obviously with it not being part of the administration process, the only question remaining is whether it should be. Setting moral aspects aside, from a legal standpoint, it appears that the creditors have no claim. I'd assume that this is precisely why the holding company and subsidiaries were set up in this manner. Worth noting that GELLAW 101 was dormant prior to the filing of the 2019 tax exemption which perhaps confirms this thinking?

 

Gellaw 101  Is a dormant company with investments in 2 other dormant companies. It does not go into administration to protect the creditors because it has none. It has no assets either.

[Comrade 86]

37 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Gellaw 101  Is a dormant company with investments in 2 other dormant companies. It does not go into administration to protect the creditors because it has none. It has no assets either.

Isn't that what I just said? ? 

Gellaw 101 is not currently dormant though. Hasn't been since September 2019.

[PistoldPete]

5 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Isn't that what I just said? ? 

Gellaw 101 is not currently dormant though. Hasn't been since September 2019.

Not sure what you were saying. You asked whether Gellaw 101 should have been part of the admin process.

 

I think it is dormant...  it has no income, and the only assets are holdings in other dormant companies. As it has no creditors it does not need to file for administration (which is only necessary to protect the creditors)  so the answer is no it should not be part of it.

[B4ev6is]

8 hours ago, Woodley Ram said:

I put some of the supporters of other clubs in the same bracket as the current climate change protestors, ill informed and unable to see anything other than their own views which (as the information is limited) is a bit blinkered. I know they will say the same about us and yes in some cases that is true.

This is what I have picked up especially from the BCFC forum.

1. The amortisation was very bad and the fine was not good enough. The EFL needs to take this into account when any other FFP penalties are issues.
2. We got away with murder with the sale of the stadium and have cheated. IF and only if the stadium is sold to the new owner at a discounted rate then we should be sent back to a tribunal for possible points deductions. Not sure they can do that, isn't there a double jeopardy law for this?? If that happened (the sale back to new owners) I can understand why people wouldn't be happy with that. Also a point here the EFL did originally sign it off and asked for a small reduction which we adhered to. 
3.  We have cheated for years, overspent for years and we should have our feet put to the fire for it, made an example. Well the amortisation whilst legal for other businesses is not for the EFL. We didn't hide the amortisation (that's how it as picked up) but we could have been a lot clearer (that's why the fine was low).
4. We haven't been trying it on with the EFL for years. They took us to a tribunal and lost, they appealed and won the amortisation part. From this we had to resubmit the accounts which we did.
5. We didn't submit our accounts to the EFL on time, agreed that's because of the appeal and redoing them. however we could have been quicker (just my point of view), but it really wouldn't have been that much quicker.   
6. We didn't pay transfer fees on time. Yep not the only ones to do that
7. We didn't pay wages on time. Yep about 3 weeks late and we received a penalty for that. Others were far worse (SWFC)
8. We didn't pay HMRC, agreed and we got a transfer embargo for that (and the others)
9. We went into administration and appealed. Sorry are we not allowed to do that? Isn't that in the rules or doesn't that apply to us? Do we have a case, yes, will we win probably not. Also our case is different than Wigan's and I would say stronger.
10. We should get a bigger deduction than Reading because of not paying bills (HMRC) and the amortisation. Even though they have a far bigger FFP over spend and I don't really care if they are greatly overspent next season. 
11. We need a sustainable business plan. I agree and our operating costs have been greatly reduced with a wage bill in the bottom 3-4 in the Championship. Everyone should have aa sustainable business plan. The Gumps and BCFC have been lucky that they have sold players for really large sums, if they hadn't they would be in the FFP naughty room.
12. Lets talk Covid. If teams are going to get debts written off for FFP(I think Stoke was +£30m) due to Covid then it has to be due to a Force Majore event, which I believe Covid is.  You cannot use it for that but not for the reason why we are in administration. If Covid was the reason (and I am saying If) then we should not get a penalty. The fact others haven't gone the same way is irrelevant. there is no law in the land that states that an owner has to cover very large losses and if he cannot for what ever reason then you go bust. Trust me I would rather we were never in this situation.
13. Wycombe and Gibson asking for money. Fine , I still don't think its going anywhere. It it does I think QPR and Aston Villa will still be in the statute of limitations window to sue both of them for going up instead of us. I think that (play off finals) would be a stronger and bigger case (£100m each ). I do however think that this is not the way to go.
14. people need to look at other things, Readings FFP  losses, who they have signed for peanuts (effectively a free loan), Fulham deferring payment of Wilson for 2 years.
15. All we ask for is a level playing field based on facts and not conjecture 

Not on time not technically true they gave us week extension and in which got them in on time.

[kevinhectoring]

10 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I did wonder about this myself but GELLAW 101, is not trading nor does it have any creditors. Obviously with it not being part of the administration process, the only question remaining is whether it should be. Setting moral aspects aside, from a legal standpoint, it appears that the creditors have no claim. I'd assume that this is precisely why the holding company and subsidiaries were set up in this manner. Worth noting that GELLAW 101 was dormant prior to the filing of the 2019 tax exemption which perhaps confirms this thinking?

 

? I was referring to the stadium owning company. Which I’d thought was 202.  Did I get that wrong?
There are a few reasons companies go into administration and the main one is they need protection from creditors.  MSD is not going to drive the stadium owning company into liquidation and nor is Mel. And if there are other creditors (?HMRC) I’d guess that if those creditors were to cut up rough, it would go into administration. 

[Comrade 86]

14 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Not sure what you were saying. You asked whether Gellaw 101 should have been part of the admin process.

Read what I wrote. I stated that from a moral standpoint, it could be argued that it should not be treated differently to the subsidiaries but that legally, there is no case for doing so. It's quite clear! Not sure what point you're trying to make ?

14 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

I think it is dormant... 

That fact that a company is not trading (by your metrics at least) does not mean it is dormant. See below. It seems the only year it has been legally dormant was 2017 but perhaps I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading.

10 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

? I was referring to the stadium owning company. Which I’d thought was 202.  Did I get that wrong?
There are a few reasons companies go into administration and the main one is they need protection from creditors.  MSD is not going to drive the stadium owning company into liquidation and nor is Mel. And if there are other creditors (?HMRC) I’d guess that if those creditors were to cut up rough, it would go into administration. 

No you're right buddy. It's hard to tell but it appears that the asset was listed against 101 until June 2021 then ownership was transferred. The same rules apply in terms of the creditor claims, however. 

For clarity, I understand why we've gone into admin, I just see zero basis for a claim against the stadium, or Mel personally, for that matter. The only way this would change is if Mel decides to let the stadium go to MSD which I am near certain will not happen. Mel's praise for MSD in his post-admin new conference was gushing. A deal has been stuck and if my hunch is correct, it's a deal that will please us fans.

I'm going to leave it here as this thread tends to go around in circles and it's probably best if I don't add to the melee. We'll know soon enough in any case.

Edited October 31, 2021 by 86 Hair Islands

[RoyMac5]

[Day]

So a rule put in place to prevent future stadium sales following the Pride Park sale, meaning Blackburn have had to sell their training ground to themselves instead recently for £16m to balance the books.

And now because of our appeal on the admin points they are looking to change that rule as well.

You watch, when Derby win again they will look at stopping clubs being awarded 3 points when they win a game ?

[Crewton]

3 minutes ago, David said:

So a rule put in place to prevent future stadium sales following the Pride Park sale, meaning Blackburn have had to sell their training ground to themselves instead recently for £16m to balance the books.

And now because of our appeal on the admin points they are looking to change that rule as well.

You watch, when Derby win again they will look at stopping clubs being awarded 3 points when they win a game ?

They're "special" aren't they? 

Maybe they should think about also barring the ownership of any proportion of an EFL club by any person or entity that owns any proportion of another football club in any jurisdiction? I mean surely they'd want to close the loopholes that Watford, Wolves and Forest in particular have shamelessly exploited? No? I wonder why they haven't? I'm sure if Mel had bought, say, a French top flight club, they'd have had a field day.... ? 

[hintonsboots]

should have extra penalties in future if people try to take a chance by getting it reduced ... that is IN FUTURE and not the Derby case.

I wouldn’t describe it as taking a chance. Each potential appeal will be looked at by the respective clubs legal advisors before deciding on the potential success of taking it to an independent panel ? If the EFL are once again changing the rules then I would suspect Derby have a more than 50% chance of overturning the 12 point penalty.

[Indy]

1 hour ago, hintonsboots said:

should have extra penalties in future if people try to take a chance by getting it reduced ... that is IN FUTURE and not the Derby case.

I wouldn’t describe it as taking a chance. Each potential appeal will be looked at by the respective clubs legal advisors before deciding on the potential success of taking it to an independent panel ? If the EFL are once again changing the rules then I would suspect Derby have a more than 50% chance of overturning the 12 point penalty.

With my optimistic head on, I think this looks like the EFL putting something in place to announce the same time as losing the appeal so they can continue their feeble narrative of being in charge and/or competent.