The Administration Thread

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

 

Jesus H.  One of the basement dwellers from OTIB-I can't imagine who - has joined the Gumps forum.  Probably evicted before they finally slip into a coma. What a life. Sad b******.?

Thanks for the welcome last week, enjoyed Notcher's post on the financials too- and indeed ultimately what it comes down to there is "where are the accounts". 3 years worth not there, not only for the club, parent and consolidator but a range of subsidaries who would not be affected by the amortisation issue.

Club DCFC, Stadia DCFC and potentially Derby County FC Academy are unaffected by amortisation of Player Registrations- academy products have a net book value of zero from the getgo,so why they didn't even release these specific ones in 2020 and 2021 pre administration is puzzling. Only exception to that rule is if they added players for fees from other clubs to DCFC Academy maybe.

On one or two other bits. The stadium loophole was shut in summer 2021, after a vote by clubs. Not just for stadia either, but any and every Tangible Fixed Asset. Not to say that a club cannot do it, just that the EFL or UEFA it exclude it from the FFP numbers. In actual fact, prior to 2016 it was already excluded from the EFL FFP regs and UEFA never brought it in probably because they could see where it might lead and that it was a stupid idea!

The Stoke one is quite interesting for a couple of reasons. They have sold the stadium for about £70m so a profit on that of £30m or so- the training ground too with a few million profit but the stadium sale is the big one, think the total profit for the two was £32m or so.

However I wonder why- and it maybe innocent- the sale date as stated in the accounts appears not to align with the Land Registry. Sheffield Wednesday got in trouble for this to an extent and it had to be put in the correct year although they botched it badly. Stoke may not have done.

The difference here is that if put in the correct year the EFL's own rules state that it should be excluded from FFP/P&S. Not only was it the season of 2021/22 but the Accounting Reference Period covering that season.

Fully accept that the Land Registry can lag, and exacerbated post Covid but the timespans are more like SWFC at this juncture than Aston Villa, Derby, and belatedly Sheffield Wednesday. Dunno about Birmingham or Reading but they 'sold' to foreign individuals/companies.
 

(b)with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22, profit/loss on disposal of any tangible fixed asset.

I'd simply say Devil in the detail.

As for Derby, puzzled as to the total silence on HMRC debt, puzzled too as to how the rules on council borrowing fit with the talk of borrowed money. Someone on OTIB got at this point.

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co...le-for-support

Refinance commercial property debt? OTOH, the other side- included within the article puts speculation as to how they fund it at odds with a law change?
 

The guidance followed a ruling by the Treasury last November that councils could no longer borrow from the PWLB simply to support property purchases made “primarily for yield”.

Would buying Pride Park with money borrowed be classed as this? Yet another public subsidy to Derby if so...and one that seems suspect based on this. If it's not primarily for yield, that again strikes me as a bad use of public money in this time.

I am sure the other clubs will be watching the EFL very closely, and the EFL's Owners and Directors Test contains this section- and I would hope a stringent Business Plan would come under this.
 

3.2 In relation to any proposed acquisition of Control of a Club by a Person, The League shall have:

3.2.1 the powers set out in Regulation 16.20; and/or

3.2.2 the ability to impose such other conditions,

as in each case it may determine, in order to monitor and/or ensure compliance with Regulations 16 to 19, 21, 22 (including Appendix 3) and 103 to 113 inclusive (and their successor or replacement provisions).
Sounds a bit like carte blanche I reckon. Especially in conjunction with...
 

3.3 No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:

3.3.1 The League provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule 3.1.1(a) and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Relevant Person;

3.3.2 The League provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule 3.1.1(b); and

3.3.3 The Club and any Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule 3.2.

One more on OTIB who has been both quite scathing and informative about Derby- HXJ. He was actually banned from posting when he tried to join in 2021- before he'd even posted a thing!

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

Paradise is next to Rollerwolrd mate, the other end of town (one for the 90s Ravers oi oi) 

I think you'll find it's the old Casino next to the old Pennine Hotel

[Mucker1884]

8 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

I think you'll find it's the old Casino next to the old Pennine Hotel

Not sure about that, but the current "Slice of India" restaurant, next to/adjoining Roller World, was definitely Paradise Nightclub back in Jan '86, on the night Dirty Den came to town... which coincided with the night and place I first met the delectable future Mrs Mucker!  

"...And we've remained in paradise ever since, dear", says I... often... with a straight face!   ?

 

[Indy]

50 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

 

Jesus H.  One of the basement dwellers from OTIB-I can't imagine who - has joined the Gumps forum.  Probably evicted before they finally slip into a coma. What a life. Sad b******.?

Thanks for the welcome last week, enjoyed Notcher's post on the financials too- and indeed ultimately what it comes down to there is "where are the accounts". 3 years worth not there, not only for the club, parent and consolidator but a range of subsidaries who would not be affected by the amortisation issue.

Club DCFC, Stadia DCFC and potentially Derby County FC Academy are unaffected by amortisation of Player Registrations- academy products have a net book value of zero from the getgo,so why they didn't even release these specific ones in 2020 and 2021 pre administration is puzzling. Only exception to that rule is if they added players for fees from other clubs to DCFC Academy maybe.

On one or two other bits. The stadium loophole was shut in summer 2021, after a vote by clubs. Not just for stadia either, but any and every Tangible Fixed Asset. Not to say that a club cannot do it, just that the EFL or UEFA it exclude it from the FFP numbers. In actual fact, prior to 2016 it was already excluded from the EFL FFP regs and UEFA never brought it in probably because they could see where it might lead and that it was a stupid idea!

The Stoke one is quite interesting for a couple of reasons. They have sold the stadium for about £70m so a profit on that of £30m or so- the training ground too with a few million profit but the stadium sale is the big one, think the total profit for the two was £32m or so.

However I wonder why- and it maybe innocent- the sale date as stated in the accounts appears not to align with the Land Registry. Sheffield Wednesday got in trouble for this to an extent and it had to be put in the correct year although they botched it badly. Stoke may not have done.

The difference here is that if put in the correct year the EFL's own rules state that it should be excluded from FFP/P&S. Not only was it the season of 2021/22 but the Accounting Reference Period covering that season.

Fully accept that the Land Registry can lag, and exacerbated post Covid but the timespans are more like SWFC at this juncture than Aston Villa, Derby, and belatedly Sheffield Wednesday. Dunno about Birmingham or Reading but they 'sold' to foreign individuals/companies.
 

(b)with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22, profit/loss on disposal of any tangible fixed asset.

I'd simply say Devil in the detail.

As for Derby, puzzled as to the total silence on HMRC debt, puzzled too as to how the rules on council borrowing fit with the talk of borrowed money. Someone on OTIB got at this point.

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co...le-for-support

Refinance commercial property debt? OTOH, the other side- included within the article puts speculation as to how they fund it at odds with a law change?
 

The guidance followed a ruling by the Treasury last November that councils could no longer borrow from the PWLB simply to support property purchases made “primarily for yield”.

Would buying Pride Park with money borrowed be classed as this? Yet another public subsidy to Derby if so...and one that seems suspect based on this. If it's not primarily for yield, that again strikes me as a bad use of public money in this time.

I am sure the other clubs will be watching the EFL very closely, and the EFL's Owners and Directors Test contains this section- and I would hope a stringent Business Plan would come under this.
 

3.2 In relation to any proposed acquisition of Control of a Club by a Person, The League shall have:

3.2.1 the powers set out in Regulation 16.20; and/or

3.2.2 the ability to impose such other conditions,

as in each case it may determine, in order to monitor and/or ensure compliance with Regulations 16 to 19, 21, 22 (including Appendix 3) and 103 to 113 inclusive (and their successor or replacement provisions).
Sounds a bit like carte blanche I reckon. Especially in conjunction with...
 

3.3 No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:

3.3.1 The League provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule 3.1.1(a) and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Relevant Person;

3.3.2 The League provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule 3.1.1(b); and

3.3.3 The Club and any Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule 3.2.

One more on OTIB who has been both quite scathing and informative about Derby- HXJ. He was actually banned from posting when he tried to join in 2021- before he'd even posted a thing!

I’m looking forward to the next week or so as we’ll either be sorted and these idiots can crawl back under their stones, or we’ll be liquidated and I’ll never look at a football forum again. Either way, I can’t wait to not have to continue to endure their pathetic crusade to kill DCFC. 

[angieram]

Just now, Indy said:

I’m looking forward to the next week or so as we’ll either be sorted and these idiots can crawl back under their stones, or we’ll be liquidated and I’ll never look at a football forum again. Either way, I can’t wait to not have to continue to endure their pathetic crusade to kill DCFC. 

I can't understand for the life of me why

1.  @Gee SCREAMER !! seeks it out, then

2. Inflicts it on the rest of us! ?

[BramcoteRam84]

59 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

 

Jesus H.  One of the basement dwellers from OTIB-I can't imagine who - has joined the Gumps forum.  Probably evicted before they finally slip into a coma. What a life. Sad b******.?

Thanks for the welcome last week, enjoyed Notcher's post on the financials too- and indeed ultimately what it comes down to there is "where are the accounts". 3 years worth not there, not only for the club, parent and consolidator but a range of subsidaries who would not be affected by the amortisation issue.

Club DCFC, Stadia DCFC and potentially Derby County FC Academy are unaffected by amortisation of Player Registrations- academy products have a net book value of zero from the getgo,so why they didn't even release these specific ones in 2020 and 2021 pre administration is puzzling. Only exception to that rule is if they added players for fees from other clubs to DCFC Academy maybe.

On one or two other bits. The stadium loophole was shut in summer 2021, after a vote by clubs. Not just for stadia either, but any and every Tangible Fixed Asset. Not to say that a club cannot do it, just that the EFL or UEFA it exclude it from the FFP numbers. In actual fact, prior to 2016 it was already excluded from the EFL FFP regs and UEFA never brought it in probably because they could see where it might lead and that it was a stupid idea!

The Stoke one is quite interesting for a couple of reasons. They have sold the stadium for about £70m so a profit on that of £30m or so- the training ground too with a few million profit but the stadium sale is the big one, think the total profit for the two was £32m or so.

However I wonder why- and it maybe innocent- the sale date as stated in the accounts appears not to align with the Land Registry. Sheffield Wednesday got in trouble for this to an extent and it had to be put in the correct year although they botched it badly. Stoke may not have done.

The difference here is that if put in the correct year the EFL's own rules state that it should be excluded from FFP/P&S. Not only was it the season of 2021/22 but the Accounting Reference Period covering that season.

Fully accept that the Land Registry can lag, and exacerbated post Covid but the timespans are more like SWFC at this juncture than Aston Villa, Derby, and belatedly Sheffield Wednesday. Dunno about Birmingham or Reading but they 'sold' to foreign individuals/companies.
 

(b)with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22, profit/loss on disposal of any tangible fixed asset.

I'd simply say Devil in the detail.

As for Derby, puzzled as to the total silence on HMRC debt, puzzled too as to how the rules on council borrowing fit with the talk of borrowed money. Someone on OTIB got at this point.

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co...le-for-support

Refinance commercial property debt? OTOH, the other side- included within the article puts speculation as to how they fund it at odds with a law change?
 

The guidance followed a ruling by the Treasury last November that councils could no longer borrow from the PWLB simply to support property purchases made “primarily for yield”.

Would buying Pride Park with money borrowed be classed as this? Yet another public subsidy to Derby if so...and one that seems suspect based on this. If it's not primarily for yield, that again strikes me as a bad use of public money in this time.

I am sure the other clubs will be watching the EFL very closely, and the EFL's Owners and Directors Test contains this section- and I would hope a stringent Business Plan would come under this.
 

3.2 In relation to any proposed acquisition of Control of a Club by a Person, The League shall have:

3.2.1 the powers set out in Regulation 16.20; and/or

3.2.2 the ability to impose such other conditions,

as in each case it may determine, in order to monitor and/or ensure compliance with Regulations 16 to 19, 21, 22 (including Appendix 3) and 103 to 113 inclusive (and their successor or replacement provisions).
Sounds a bit like carte blanche I reckon. Especially in conjunction with...
 

3.3 No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:

3.3.1 The League provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule 3.1.1(a) and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Relevant Person;

3.3.2 The League provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule 3.1.1(b); and

3.3.3 The Club and any Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule 3.2.

One more on OTIB who has been both quite scathing and informative about Derby- HXJ. He was actually banned from posting when he tried to join in 2021- before he'd even posted a thing!

Wow! Just wow!! He clearly needs some help!!

[Mucker1884]

11 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

Wow! Just wow!! He clearly needs some help!!

An assistant, yer mean?  
bit of admin/filing/Mek a brew?
PA?

?

 

[B4ev6is]

I cant wait until thursday saying take over compelted.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

15 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

Wow! Just wow!! He clearly needs some help!!

He won't get it on there.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

29 minutes ago, angieram said:

I can't understand for the life of me why

1.  @Gee SCREAMER !! seeks it out, then

2. Inflicts it on the rest of us! ?

There's not much seeking to be fair, it was a whole page.?

[Alty_Ram]

Wow, someone over there needs a hobby... You know those people who sit in supermarket car parks watching everyone who pulls into a disabled parking space to see if they are sufficiently obviously disabled ?...

[Inverurie Ram]

If you want to defeat your enemy sing his song. The Icicle Works - Sweet Thursday.

 

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

40 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

There's not much seeking to be fair, it was a whole page.?

100 pages of Derby deserving relegation. Strange people.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 hour ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

Wow! Just wow!! He clearly needs some help!!

Clearly him them.?

:laugh:, old man Gee Screamer on the whisky again.

Not a lot to say other than enjoy League 1 and the Imposed Business Plan.

There's not much sympathy among Championship clubs for Derby or among Championship fans and SOME on DCFCFans are a good reason why.

Not me FWIW but some okay posts.

Relegation occured, kinda sated now provided that the EFL don't cut corners.

 

[ScamRam]

25 minutes ago, Inverurie Ram said:

If you want to defeat your enemy sing his song. The Icicle Works - Sweet Thursday.

 

Fave bands of all time, great shout Inverurie, lets 'hope springs eternal' for a better DCFC future

[Crewton]

1 hour ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

There's not much seeking to be fair, it was a whole page.?

That's Mr Ploppy. It's absolutely his style from what I've read on OTIB. He'll claim it isn't, but it is. It's funny to see him and the Lobotomy crew slick-legging each other over our finances. 

 

[Ram1988]

Can't wait for the takeover to be completed so we can offer our players new contracts. Let's hope Mel doesn't hold it up with the stadium sale.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

23 minutes ago, Crewton said:

That's Mr Ploppy. It's absolutely his style from what I've read on OTIB. He'll claim it isn't, but it is. It's funny to see him and the Lobotomy crew slick-legging each other over our finances. 

 

Devils in the details 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

18 minutes ago, Ram1988 said:

Can't wait for the takeover to be completed so we can offer our players new contracts. Let's hope Mel doesn't hold it up with the stadium sale.

[68 Guns]

4 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

 

Jesus H.  One of the basement dwellers from OTIB-I can't imagine who - has joined the Gumps forum.  Probably evicted before they finally slip into a coma. What a life. Sad b******.?

Thanks for the welcome last week, enjoyed Notcher's post on the financials too- and indeed ultimately what it comes down to there is "where are the accounts". 3 years worth not there, not only for the club, parent and consolidator but a range of subsidaries who would not be affected by the amortisation issue.

Club DCFC, Stadia DCFC and potentially Derby County FC Academy are unaffected by amortisation of Player Registrations- academy products have a net book value of zero from the getgo,so why they didn't even release these specific ones in 2020 and 2021 pre administration is puzzling. Only exception to that rule is if they added players for fees from other clubs to DCFC Academy maybe.

On one or two other bits. The stadium loophole was shut in summer 2021, after a vote by clubs. Not just for stadia either, but any and every Tangible Fixed Asset. Not to say that a club cannot do it, just that the EFL or UEFA it exclude it from the FFP numbers. In actual fact, prior to 2016 it was already excluded from the EFL FFP regs and UEFA never brought it in probably because they could see where it might lead and that it was a stupid idea!

The Stoke one is quite interesting for a couple of reasons. They have sold the stadium for about £70m so a profit on that of £30m or so- the training ground too with a few million profit but the stadium sale is the big one, think the total profit for the two was £32m or so.

However I wonder why- and it maybe innocent- the sale date as stated in the accounts appears not to align with the Land Registry. Sheffield Wednesday got in trouble for this to an extent and it had to be put in the correct year although they botched it badly. Stoke may not have done.

The difference here is that if put in the correct year the EFL's own rules state that it should be excluded from FFP/P&S. Not only was it the season of 2021/22 but the Accounting Reference Period covering that season.

Fully accept that the Land Registry can lag, and exacerbated post Covid but the timespans are more like SWFC at this juncture than Aston Villa, Derby, and belatedly Sheffield Wednesday. Dunno about Birmingham or Reading but they 'sold' to foreign individuals/companies.
 

(b)with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22, profit/loss on disposal of any tangible fixed asset.

I'd simply say Devil in the detail.

As for Derby, puzzled as to the total silence on HMRC debt, puzzled too as to how the rules on council borrowing fit with the talk of borrowed money. Someone on OTIB got at this point.

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co...le-for-support

Refinance commercial property debt? OTOH, the other side- included within the article puts speculation as to how they fund it at odds with a law change?
 

The guidance followed a ruling by the Treasury last November that councils could no longer borrow from the PWLB simply to support property purchases made “primarily for yield”.

Would buying Pride Park with money borrowed be classed as this? Yet another public subsidy to Derby if so...and one that seems suspect based on this. If it's not primarily for yield, that again strikes me as a bad use of public money in this time.

I am sure the other clubs will be watching the EFL very closely, and the EFL's Owners and Directors Test contains this section- and I would hope a stringent Business Plan would come under this.
 

3.2 In relation to any proposed acquisition of Control of a Club by a Person, The League shall have:

3.2.1 the powers set out in Regulation 16.20; and/or

3.2.2 the ability to impose such other conditions,

as in each case it may determine, in order to monitor and/or ensure compliance with Regulations 16 to 19, 21, 22 (including Appendix 3) and 103 to 113 inclusive (and their successor or replacement provisions).
Sounds a bit like carte blanche I reckon. Especially in conjunction with...
 

3.3 No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:

3.3.1 The League provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule 3.1.1(a) and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Relevant Person;

3.3.2 The League provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule 3.1.1(b); and

3.3.3 The Club and any Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule 3.2.

One more on OTIB who has been both quite scathing and informative about Derby- HXJ. He was actually banned from posting when he tried to join in 2021- before he'd even posted a thing!

You expect us to read that? I stopped at OTIB!

Never sure why folks are so obsessed with reporting about other folks who are obsessed with us.

It's of no relevance to this thread ( no relevance to me full stop) I'm a ram. Could not care less about Leeds or Forest or whoever.

We spend too long worrying about others. It's laughable to be honest.

If you are a true Ram you shouldn't be bothered about the others. Just us.