Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Gaspode said:

you can’t prepare for an unexpected event….. otherwise it wouldn’t be unexpected

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

[Sparkle]

I say again ask for ten examples from the EFL of how an appeal can be successful?

I suspect they won’t allow aliens abducting a teams players and owner to count because you should plan for it happening eventually 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

14 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Force Majeure is defined in the EFL Rules as follows:

 

"For the purposes of this Regulation 12, a ‘Force Majeure’ event shall be an event that, having
regard to all of the circumstances, was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances,
other than normal business risks, over which the Club and/or Group Undertaking (as the case
may be) could not reasonably be expected to have control and its Officials had used all due
diligence to avoid the happening of that event"

 

As I say there is no question that COVID fits that description.

Oh and if you are listening to Maguire podcasts, he is an EFL stooge. Do not believe a word that he says.

No idea why people cream over Maguire.

He has made a name for himself off our financial troubles and the amortisation thing would have been fine if it wasn't for HIM complaining to the EFL, more than once, about it.

 

[kevinhectoring]

The headline for Nixon’s latest article is: “The English Football League are demanding that Derby County’s administrators prove they have enough funds to last the entirety of the campaign.”

Not clear if this is the EFL upping the anti after our appeal. Or whether it’s the point that even if we do a deal on points, we can’t buy players unless we can show we are financially stable.  Hope it’s the latter. 

[Sparkle]

2 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

The headline for Nixon’s latest article is: “The English Football League are demanding that Derby County’s administrators prove they have enough funds to last the entirety of the campaign.”

Not clear if this is the EFL upping the anti after our appeal. Or whether it’s the point that even if we do a deal on points, we can’t buy players unless we can show we are financially stable.  Hope it’s the latter. 

Are the EFL interested in the other EFL clubs and their ability to pay their bills until august as well?

[Gaspode]

1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

You scenario test for possible future events, such as a sudden loss of revenue, and design mitigating plans to increase the resilience of your business. 

Risk management. 

I know full well what Risk Management is thanks, but I don't know of any mitigation plan that allows for a total loss of income whilst still maintaining costs.

But that's pretty much irrelevant as we're talking about whether the clause is applicable. You stated "We will claim we have been reducing costs, no doubt the EFL will try to claim running up debts is not consistent with "doing all you can to prepare...". We were not alone in failing to prepare for a global pandemic because no-one really expected it to ever happen - certainly not on the scale it did and not with the impact it did. It was therefore an unexpected event which we couldn't have been expected to prepare for.....in fact I can't think of a single company (or country/government) that said " Don't worry folks, out risk planning has made sure we're perfectly placed to cope with something so unexpected".

The club's argument will be that we would have continued to operate if covid hadn't happened - we'd already been drastically reducing our costs but still couldn't avoid or survive the hit on our income.....

[kevinhectoring]

14 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

No idea why people cream over Maguire.

He has made a name for himself off our financial troubles and the amortisation thing would have been fine if it wasn't for HIM complaining to the EFL, more than once, about it.

 

Yes. There’s bad blood between Maguire and MM 

[PistoldPete]

14 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

No idea why people cream over Maguire.

He has made a name for himself off our financial troubles and the amortisation thing would have been fine if it wasn't for HIM complaining to the EFL, more than once, about it.

 

I think he complained in 2018 and the EFL ignored him. Then suddenly in late 2019/ early 2020 the amortisation issue gets raised by the EFL again.. three years after the notes to the accounts of 2015/16 had explained it. Why did it take so long, and why did the EFL suddenly start listening to Maguire? 

[ram59]

39 minutes 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.

But, there is a history of houses burning down, being flooded or getting struck by lightning, I've suffered the last one myself.

However, never in the history of football have fans not been able to go to the grounds. It's like saying that we should insure the ground for being destroyed by aliens.

You can have a 'rainy day fund' for unforeseen events, but nobody could have foreseen an event, causing as much disruption as covid has.

[Gaspode]

45 minutes 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.

So why weren't other clubs prepared if we're considered to be at fault? - no other clubs are coming out of the pandemic singing about how they'd got a plan in place which protected them from the effects of covid. No-one saw it coming on such a huge scale that the government would close the gates for 18 months, so no-one was prepared for it....

[PistoldPete]

11 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

The headline for Nixon’s latest article is: “The English Football League are demanding that Derby County’s administrators prove they have enough funds to last the entirety of the campaign.”

Not clear if this is the EFL upping the anti after our appeal. Or whether it’s the point that even if we do a deal on points, we can’t buy players unless we can show we are financially stable.  Hope it’s the latter. 

Did no-one tell the EFL that the club is up for sale, and that the buyers will provide the funding? Isn't that the point of what the administrators are doing? And every prospective buyer has at least £5 million sitting in a bank account? What more do the EFL expect the administrators to do? 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

17 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

The headline for Nixon’s latest article is: “The English Football League are demanding that Derby County’s administrators prove they have enough funds to last the entirety of the campaign.”

Not clear if this is the EFL upping the anti after our appeal. Or whether it’s the point that even if we do a deal on points, we can’t buy players unless we can show we are financially stable.  Hope it’s the latter. 

My first impressions was this is the EFL saying "how dare you appeal, we are going to make things even harder for you now".

Although, I can't imagine an independent body could change their approach just because one of their members files an appeal, which is their right to do.

How many times do the EFL file a very surprising appeal?

[I know nuffin]

The EFLs stupidity should not be a problem. It appears prospective buyers will need to put in 45 million to take over the club. It is beyond sanity that someone would pay that much having seen the books and not have enough money to last out the season and lose the money that they have put into the club by buying it in the first place

[PistoldPete]

10 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

It will fit the definition, but our case will hinge on the bit about whether the club did everything they could to prepare...

We will claim we have been reducing costs, no doubt the EFL will try to claim running up debts is not consistent with "doing all you can to prepare..." 

It'll be a bunch of technical arguments I suspect.... 

The phrase "could not reasonably be expected to have control and its Officials had used all due
diligence to avoid the happening of that event" 

refers to the Force Majeure Event, ie covid / lockdown. There is no argument worth having to say that Derby could have used due diligence to avoid either of those related  events happening.

There is another event defined in the EFL Rules .. the insolvency event . And Derby's case is that one event The force Majeure Event caused the other Event , the insolvency event.

None of what you say can possibly refute the fact that covid and lockdown are  jointly and separately Force Majeure Events within the definition of the EFL Rules.  What i think you are saying is that Derby should have used due diligence to avoid an insolvency event, notwithstanding the COVID event happening. 

 

 

[Van der MoodHoover]

12 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

I know full well what Risk Management is thanks, but I don't know of any mitigation plan that allows for a total loss of income whilst still maintaining costs.

But that's pretty much irrelevant as we're talking about whether the clause is applicable. You stated "We will claim we have been reducing costs, no doubt the EFL will try to claim running up debts is not consistent with "doing all you can to prepare...". We were not alone in failing to prepare for a global pandemic because no-one really expected it to ever happen - certainly not on the scale it did and not with the impact it did. It was therefore an unexpected event which we couldn't have been expected to prepare for.....in fact I can't think of a single company (or country/government) that said " Don't worry folks, out risk planning has made sure we're perfectly placed to cope with something so unexpected".

The club's argument will be that we would have continued to operate if covid hadn't happened - we'd already been drastically reducing our costs but still couldn't avoid or survive the hit on our income.....

I would expect the EFL to argue... 

- why we were running at a loss prior to the pandemic which would reduce our ability to withstand a revenue/cost shock

-what contingent funding arrangements, alternative revenue streams, cost cutting plans we had to invoke if income suddenly reduced

- why we are the only club placed in administration, suggesting like Wigan it's a choice of the owner who had failed to manage his business prudently in the relatively good times. 

I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm not necessarily saying that I agree but it's a line I think that the EFL could take as to why a reduction in the penalty is not justified. 

I don't know whether or not the independent panel would agree. 

BTW most financial services businesses adapted rapidly to home working by rapid and heavy investment in technology to preserve their revenue capability. Other service businesses switched to a delivery model - even our local pub put its grub menu online and offered a click and collect service. So the argument that businesses couldn't adapt at all is a fallacy. Dcfc diid a few things with Rams TV. Could they have tried more? 

You've obviously convinced yourself that the argument is watertight and our case is sound. Maybe you will be proven correct. 

 

 

 

[Ram-Alf]

36 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

I know full well what Risk Management is thanks, but I don't know of any mitigation plan that allows for a total loss of income whilst still maintaining costs.

But that's pretty much irrelevant as we're talking about whether the clause is applicable. You stated "We will claim we have been reducing costs, no doubt the EFL will try to claim running up debts is not consistent with "doing all you can to prepare...". We were not alone in failing to prepare for a global pandemic because no-one really expected it to ever happen - certainly not on the scale it did and not with the impact it did. It was therefore an unexpected event which we couldn't have been expected to prepare for.....in fact I can't think of a single company (or country/government) that said " Don't worry folks, out risk planning has made sure we're perfectly placed to cope with something so unexpected".

The club's argument will be that we would have continued to operate if covid hadn't happened - we'd already been drastically reducing our costs but still couldn't avoid or survive the hit on our income.....

I remember one of the 1st Covid briefings to the British public where one of the Senior Medical Advisors said...in the worse case scenario we'll see a maximum 20,000 deaths due to Covid...Wow did they get their risk planning wrong...now circa 139,000

[Crewton]

The government had no plans in place for a potential pandemic, even though a test exercise was run in 2016 - they completely ignored the recommendations. So any expectation that an EFL club would have done so is delusional. 

On a practical level, there are severe limitations to what DCFC could have done to prepare for the pandemic and, once it hit, their options were limited still further, particularly considering the lack of a strategic plan from the government. 

The first lockdown occurred between transfer windows - no opportunity to raise funds from sales, and once the transfer window opened the market for our players had largely disappeared. The club had the full cost of staging matches for a season and a quarter with severely reduced gate and commercial revenue. TV subscriptions barely scratched the surface of that loss, since most were given as an alternative to ST refunds. 

Of course, I expect the EFL to argue that if the club had been in a better financial position the Event wouldn't have had such a catastrophic effect, but they also have to bear in mind that the restrictions they imposed (which they could have relaxed if they'd been truly interested in helping the club stay out of Administration) probably pushed the club into further difficulties. 

I expect all of the above and more will be raised in our appeal. 

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I would expect the EFL to argue... 

- why we were running at a loss prior to the pandemic which would reduce our ability to withstand a revenue/cost shock

-what contingent funding arrangements, alternative revenue streams, cost cutting plans we had to invoke if income suddenly reduced

- why we are the only club placed in administration, suggesting like Wigan it's a choice of the owner who had failed to manage his business prudently in the relatively good times. 

I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm not necessarily saying that I agree but it's a line I think that the EFL could take as to why a reduction in the penalty is not justified. 

I don't know whether or not the independent panel would agree. 

BTW most financial services businesses adapted rapidly to home working by rapid and heavy investment in technology to preserve their revenue capability. Other service businesses switched to a delivery model - even our local pub put its grub menu online and offered a click and collect service. So the argument that businesses couldn't adapt at all is a fallacy. Dcfc diid a few things with Rams TV. Could they have tried more? 

You've obviously convinced yourself that the argument is watertight and our case is sound. Maybe you will be proven correct. 

 

 

 

You cannot compare click and collect takeaways with the closure of a football stadium for 18 months. 
 
I have not said our case is watertight … only that it is 100% certain that COVID/lockdown are Force Majeure events per the EFl rules .

whether we win the case will depend on whether we can prove on balance of probabilities that COVID caused the administration .

The case is being brought on our behalf by a firm of insolvency practitioners. They, unlike keyboard warrior critics like Mr Plop and maguire)   are very well placed to say what caused the insolvency event , especially if Mel is a witness and supports their claim.

in Wigan’s case their former owner didn’t even want to give evidence to help them. And put them into admin days after taking over. So we should have much better chance than Wigan.

[Tamworthram]

2 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I would expect the EFL to argue... 

- why we were running at a loss prior to the pandemic which would reduce our ability to withstand a revenue/cost shock

-what contingent funding arrangements, alternative revenue streams, cost cutting plans we had to invoke if income suddenly reduced

- why we are the only club placed in administration, suggesting like Wigan it's a choice of the owner who had failed to manage his business prudently in the relatively good times. 

I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm not necessarily saying that I agree but it's a line I think that the EFL could take as to why a reduction in the penalty is not justified. 

I don't know whether or not the independent panel would agree. 

BTW most financial services businesses adapted rapidly to home working by rapid and heavy investment in technology to preserve their revenue capability. Other service businesses switched to a delivery model - even our local pub put its grub menu online and offered a click and collect service. So the argument that businesses couldn't adapt at all is a fallacy. Dcfc diid a few things with Rams TV. Could they have tried more? 

You've obviously convinced yourself that the argument is watertight and our case is sound. Maybe you will be proven correct. 

 

 

 

I agree with @PistoldPete. You can’t compare a football club with a business that is able to switch to a home delivery service. Also, apart from bank branches, it was relatively simple for the financial services industry to switch to home working (I worked for Lloyds bank for 8 months and never once went into the office or met the rest of my team face to face. My daughter and son in law are both permanent employees of a retail bank and are only just starting to go back into the office). So, that’s another poor comparison.

It’s difficult to see what more Derby could have done to protect their revenue other than charging/charging more for RamsTV streaming which wouldn’t have gone down particularly well and could have led to more requests for season ticket refunds.

[Sparkle]

The club also had to refund season tickets and match tickets as well as club memberships on one and a third seasons to those who wanted it - personally they paid me back the full amount of the unfinished season whilst last season I paid in full which results in this season my ticket was already paid for - net result the club is missing one full season and 18% of income from the original covid hit season - if that was just averaged against 8,000 fans it’s a total mess of missing money - yet we had 18,000 to 20,000 season ticket holders originally