Alan Nixon Breaks Silence on American Billionaire Bid

[G STAR RAM]

8 hours ago, RAM1966 said:

We were not eligble, because Mel would not show the EFL the accounts, no wonder with the embarassing mess he has left behind.

If MM did not show the EFL our accounts, how did they know that we had used a different amortisation policy out of interest?

[Derbados]

6 hours ago, Yani P said:

Still gobsmacked and annoyed that the EFL are letting these 2 scumbags take this forward at all..

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Rick Parry isn’t delighted that this is happening. 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Anyone who has bought or sold a house will understand how legal issues can cause expected time frames to slip. This is much more complex. I'm sure the main delay is the parasite issue. 

[G STAR RAM]

I've now read the minutes in full and some people don't half exaggerate or twist words to suit their agenda!

[Crewton]

3 hours ago, Coconut's Beard said:

We can't claim against QPR, Villa, Bournemouth if their punishments were applied at the earliest opportunity and they've done nothing to disguise their spending. 

I think it's too late for us to claim against those clubs - Villa haven’t even been charged because their takeover muddied the waters - but QPR, Leicester and Bournemouth's "punishments" were delayed by a considerable period because QPR challenged the legality of FFP and the other two delayed settling with the EFL (they were in the PL and so a punishment couldn't be imposed) pending the outcome of QPR's legal challenge. 

The biggest issue with FFP for me is that there is no integrated policy between the EFL and the PL, which has allowed "successful" cheats to benefit from their cheating. Compromise financial settlements are completely inadequate. How does Leicester's punishment relate to what is being done to DCFC? There's no comparison. The PL are 99% to blame for this imbalance by refusing to cooperate with the EFL; it's a scandal which gets little coverage in the media. 

[Crewton]

14 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

If MM did not show the EFL our accounts, how did they know that we had used a different amortisation policy out of interest?

Kieran Maguire wrote to them to draw their attention to it. 

Thanks Kieran! 

[Curtains]

I’ll never stop loving you Derby County whatever Boro and Wycombe throw at us .

Time to take them on 

 

[LeedsCityRam]

4 hours ago, Coconut's Beard said:

They could, but in reality were never going to. As I said weeks ago the notion that we'd tell these clubs to 'do one' was pure in the sky and no matter how nonsensical the claims appear to us they will need to be dealt with pre-sale, nobody is going to dish out £50m+ to buy a club if there's any lingering doubt whatsoever about further legal action and multi-million pound payouts.

That's an easy gamble to take when it's not your money. Are you 100% certain of the above and willing to risk millions of pounds? Just because every logical conclusion we can come up with points towards their cases having no merit doesn't necessarily mean that's how it would play out. Been there, been screwed over by that.

How many times did we go over all the P&S stuff? How many conclusions based on logic saw us getting away without points deductions? How many people saw the judgement of the first disciplinary panel, thought through all the logic and were sure that the EFL's appeal would fall flat on its face? 

Other clubs aren't going to step in and help us out, they're all in it for themselves. This is where it's common to mention the possibility of us paying money to these leeches opening a can of worms for other similar claims, but does that truly hold up to scrutiny? 

One difference between these two claims against us and any potential claims people think it would open up for us (or others) is that we're seen to have deliberately hidden our real outgoings over a number of years. Yes other clubs have shown a more flagrant disregard for the rules but because they've been open about it they've been punished 'accordingly' (pah!) and on time.

Ultimately our messing about over amortisation and our not filing accounts on time makes us appear to be the ones responsible for the failure to punish us in any of the last 2-3 seasons (while we point the finger at Boro and the EFL for delaying things), and that's why others think they have a case against us but nobody else is worried about it setting a precedent.

We can't claim against QPR, Villa, Bournemouth if their punishments were applied at the earliest opportunity and they've done nothing to disguise their spending. 

...and there's that logic again; logic would surely dictate that someone who has disregarded completely and outright broken the rules should be treated more harshly than someone who's tried to stay within the rules but find a way to work around them, but how has that worked out for us so far?

So many inaccuracies in this post its difficult to know where to start but the main points are;

a) you continue not to understand the difference between civil law & agenda driven EFL dieciplinary processes. You can not extrapolate the EFL retrospectively charging us with P&S breaches under pressure from other clubs into what would happen in a civil law court.

b) massive assumption that no-one would buy a club or indeed business with threatened legal action. An assessment would be made on the strength of the respective claims first

c) the notion our conduct has been so much more egregious than other clubs who have broken FFP is exactly the kind of drivel we've had to listen to from rival fans for the past year. If the EFL wanted explicit treatment of amortisation, they should have stated so. If there isnt explicit wording, clubs will find interpretations. Our accounts were publicly available & signed off by independent auditors...not deliberately hidden.

[Curtains]

5 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

So many inaccuracies in this post its difficult to know where to start but the main points are;

a) you continue not to understand the difference between civil law & agenda driven EFL dieciplinary processes. You can not extrapolate the EFL retrospectively charging us with P&S breaches under pressure from other clubs into what would happen in a civil law court.

b) massive assumption that no-one would buy a club or indeed business with threatened legal action. An assessment would be made on the strength of the respective claims first

c) the notion our conduct has been so much more egregious than other clubs who have broken FFP is exactly the kind of drivel we've had to listen to from rival fans for the past year. If the EFL wanted explicit treatment of amortisation, they should have stated so. If there isnt explicit wording, clubs will find interpretations. Our accounts were publicly available & signed off by independent auditors...not deliberately hidden.

Nevertheless it’s all about perception.

This whole situation is heartbreaking so let’s just hope the suits relent and the takeover happens .

I have had the feeling for a long time that if we don’t fight our corner with the EFL and the likes of Boro and Wycombe we will sleepwalk into oblivion.

I still hope the administrators are right and we will be saved  

 

[G STAR RAM]

50 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Kieran Maguire wrote to them to draw their attention to it. 

Thanks Kieran! 

So where did Kieran Maguire see the accounts?

[Crewton]

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So where did Kieran Maguire see the accounts?

Companies House website I imagine. 

[cool_as_custard]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So where did Kieran Maguire see the accounts?

Same place as the EFL (Companies House) but they had managed to not notice/misunderstand/ignore/approve the amortisation policy. Maguire took it upon himself to point this out to the EFL.

[PistoldPete]

10 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

I'm not venting my spleen at the administrators as they are only at the football club at all because of one person but so far they've been really poor at managing expectations.

Cynically too the longer it drags on the greater their whack.

They have said they hoped to be out of admin before Chrtsmas. That isn't going to happen. But that was never stated as an expectation,  only a hope.

 

They have said however that they expect to announce a preferred bidder this week, and said so in meetings with  the fans and with the players. So if that doesn't happen this week, then I would agree they have not managed expectations well.

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, cool_as_custard said:

Same place as the EFL (Companies House) but they had managed to not notice/misunderstand/ignore/approve the amortisation policy. Maguire took it upon himself to point this out to the EFL.

Ted Danko , ex Finance Director of EFL said the charges against Derby were  a load of rubbish. So I think it's fair to say  he didn't see a problem with the amortisation policy. It's not as if it isn't mentioned in the accounts which are publicly available as you say at Companies house. 

[I am Ram]

If the preferred bidder is announced before Christmas, it will be at 11.59 Christmas eve. It's the Derby way.

[kevinhectoring]

7 hours ago, Yani P said:

Still gobsmacked and annoyed that the EFL are letting these 2 scumbags take this forward at all..

A number of people have written this. Is there a rule that enables the EFl to do anything about it? Our fan group asked them about it specifically if I recall. And the Efl said they had no power to stop litigation between clubs 

[Woodley Ram]

The two things I take from the minutes 

- sale not to February

- we are being held to ransom by two clubs who are using the administration as a way of obtaining funds. It looks like we are entertaining paying them as otherwise it will seriously hold up the takeover.

re the first we need this completed in January . 

re the second, I can see why they are going for this. I don’t think either claims have legs if it wasn’t for the fact it will affect the buying of the club. This wouldn’t work if we sued QPR or Villa ( or Gibson to go for Villa) because they are not in administration 

people like this are known as opportunists and that is the politest word I can use for them.

I do wonder if we could take insurance out to indemnify the new owners etc and tell them to go for one

[PistoldPete]

11 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

A number of people have written this. Is there a rule that enables the EFl to do anything about it? Our fan group asked them about it specifically if I recall. And the Efl said they had no power to stop litigation between clubs 

There is a rule that Efl clubs can only bring claims against each other accordance with Efl disputes process. Efl said they didn’t want to interfere , although as it’s their own rules they go have power to change or influence those rules.

[kevinhectoring]

10 hours ago, one_chop said:

I still say we are going to be the first 'big' club that gets liquidated. 

The $64,000 question is: if omicron stymies the takeover, because no one will pay enough to keep us in the league, will MM come thundering to the rescue on his white charger and make up the difference ?

[kevinhectoring]

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

There is a rule that Efl clubs can only bring claims against each other accordance with Efl disputes process. Efl said they didn’t want to interfere , although as it’s their own rules they go have power to change or influence those rules.

Did not know. Which rule is it ?