The Administration Thread

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

It was the fellow EFL football clubs who voted to expel Bury from the Football league - that’s the main thing to remember!

How? I didn't see all the facts.

[strawhillram]

10 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Isn’t there a time limit on bringing this kind of action. Think the time has passed unfortunately. Would be a good insurance move if it were allowed but this happened 8 years ago. 

I think there is a statuatory limit of 6 years, but I believe the efl ignore the laws of the country. So open season 

[Sparkle]

11 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Isn’t there a time limit on bringing this kind of action. Think the time has passed unfortunately. Would be a good insurance move if it were allowed but this happened 8 years ago. 

In court probably - in the EFL rules and a binding panel with no appeal I don’t think so.

[Ghost of Clough]

7 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

A week before we lost 4:0 AT HOME to Blackburn? Kind of destroys that part of your argument.

Also, whilst some other clubs in league 1 will no doubt have felt hard done by and unlucky in the way the previous season ended, it was probably the fairest way so, I doubt have any problem with the way Wycombe were promoted.

As far as I'm concerned there are simply two reasons why the Wycombe owner should do one:

1) We didn't impose or exceed the timelines for resubmission of amended figures and therefore didn't breach any rules in that respect

2) The years we "cheated" were before Wycombe were in the Championship and therefore, morally, there is no reason they should benefit.

3) the years the penalties should have been applied weren't in the 20/21 season anyway

[duncanjwitham]

6 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

That would take months. What legal team would represent us and at what cost? Simply not going to happen.

I agree it's probably a long shot now, but it won't take months. All we need to do is file a notice of arbitration:

That's going to take a lawyer like an hour to draft, and then you can tweak it for the other clubs.  We don't need to take any of them further. We don't need to appoint lawyers to argue our case or anything.  Make it clear to the clubs we're claiming against that we'll drop the claims as soon as we're cleared.  But the most important thing, is that any LAP hearing our case knows the full consequences of giving a decision against us.

[WhiteHorseRam]

16 minutes ago, Raich Carter said:

We should issue an action against every club that had a vague impact on our league position. It's just about promotion (are you listening QPR) but how about us being 15th rather than 14th when Fulham (who got 'done') went up (I'm making up the league positions but you know what I mean.

Clubs that got 'done' in some capacity for FFP which could have had an impact on us are :

• Fulham
• QPR
• Florist
• Bournemouth
• Millwall
• Leeds
• Blackburn
• Hull
• Reading
• Sheff Weds
• Luton
• Coventry

All of those have had sanctions so by applying Gibson's logic, we should sue them all for any negative impact they may have had on our prize money... 

Once I was at Birmingham New Street Railway Station and someone wearing a Walsall scarf kept scaring at me.

It was a very odd situation and it put me right off the Cornetto I was eating.

If I made a statement to a solicitor I reckon that could be good for £50 off the Saddlers.

 

[PistoldPete]

38 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Honestly, that paragraph sounds like the writer is completely confused about things.  The way I understood it was that paying HMRC 25% was fine (even with the change in their status), provided it was at least the 25% that the EFL insolvency policy requires.  And the updated law (that the EFL are out of date with) was more to do with compressing the 'Boro/Wycombe claims, and that's what the offer of arbitration is about - to sort out that issue, not force the EFL to update their rules. Can you even use arbitration to make the EFL change their rules?  I thought it had to go through a club vote etc.

More than willing to admit I could be wrong on this, but it sounds to me like the writer has conflated 2 or 3 issues into one and got in a mess over what belongs to what.

The writer is confused and the Efl are confusing him. What exactly is it the Efl are offering arbitration about? 
 

the only arbitration needed is someone to come in chair a meeting with pubehead and couhig and the Efl and say to them Look whatever your claims are , whatever the merits are you are going to get nothing , there is no money so. Back off otherwise you are going to liquidate the club , make people lose their jobs and make yourselves very very unpopular in Derby and Derbyshire.

[Jimbo Ram]

11 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

I understand your sentiment but when you submit to a bully or extortion you are as bad in a way - World War Two probably could easily have been stopped if the appropriate powers at the time told Nazi Germany you are not going to take the Sudetenland you are not going to take Austria you are not going to take the rest of the Czechoslovakia - yes it’s an extreme comparison but it’s the same principle - it’s the EFL who have to make a decision and it should have been made weeks ago. I for one will never subscribe to a compromise agreement based on duress regardless of the consequences. We all want what’s best for Derby county but not at any price.

So at the end of the day you would rather we went under than compromise? Have to disagree Ian afraid….

[Jimbo Ram]

Just now, PistoldPete said:

The writer is confused and the Efl are confusing him. What exactly is it the Efl are offering arbitration about? 
 

the only arbitration needed is someone to come in chair a meeting with pubehead and couhig and the Efl and say to them Look whatever your claims are , whatever the merits are you are going to get nothing , there is no money so. Back off otherwise you are going to liquidate the club , make people lose their jobs and make yourselves very very unpopular in Derby and Derbyshire.

And when the Gibbon says I am not backing down what do you do then ?

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

Once I was at Birmingham New Street Railway Station and someone wearing a Walsall scarf kept scaring at me.

It was a very odd situation and it put me right off the Cornetto I was eating.

If I made a statement to a solicitor I reckon that could be good for £50 off the Saddlers.

 

They're still gutted we signed Junior.

[Ram-Alf]

24 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

It bothers me now that I didn't take more interest in what happened to Bury FC and others. 

Its easy to see how Bury were flattened by the EFL, they didn't stand a chance. Its only because we are a much larger club with a substantial fan base that we have just about managed to push back and to some extent turn the tide on the bullies. 

You've hit the nail on the head Scarlet, Steve Dale bought the club for £1, Pretty sure the fit and propper ownership wasn't followed, The head of the EFL at the time was Debbie Jevons, Selling a professional football club for £1 who had just won promotion should have set alarm bells ringing, But no, The new owner had a very chequered past when owning other companies, This would have flagged up the "fit and propper ownership", Dale was looking to make a fast buk, He started by not paying his staff on time, Then not paying them at all, The captain of Bury went on local radio and confronted Dale on air concerning non payment of wages.

Dale was getting regular abuse, So much so that the male population of Bury were trying to get into his gated premises, One time when on the phone to the police they were outside giving him abuse.

The upshot of all this is...the EFL went for a coffee break came back and decided to expell Bury FC, A shocking inditement of an organisation who couldn't give a toss where one of it's members were drowning, The Bury MP who spoke in Parliament said the EFL are not fit for purpose or words to that extent.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Unlucky Alf

[WhiteHorseRam]

Just now, RadioactiveWaste said:

They're still gutted we signed Junior.

I have to say I like Walsall.

 

it's like Endor with black pudding.

 

 

 

[Ghost of Clough]

7 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

The Forest ‘dodge’ needs to be looked at, but we would have breached P&S limits whatever FRS 102 compliant amortisation policy we used. The 9 points was for a significant overspend on net transfer fees and players wages, which no amortisation policy could eventually hide. Everything went on and on because Morris was clearly reluctant to submit any accounts for 2 to 3 years.

Unless we sold everyone to cover the shortfall ?

Something like £20m extra player profit in 19/20 and the same again in 20/21 or 21/22 would have seen us avoid any punishment.

As I've said before, in terms of P&S penalties, we're lucky to be forced into changing policy.
It's everything else that's gone off that has resulted in 'punishments' far worse than they would have been.

[ollycutts1982]

I can’t wait for the outcome of the meeting and to know absolutely nothing more than we already do ??? such is the faith I have in all parties involved. 

[Sparkle]

1 minute ago, Jimbo Ram said:

So at the end of the day you would rather we went under than compromise? Have to disagree Ian afraid….

I do understand your point and let’s say we agree to pay over millions of pounds to the owner of Middlesbrough football club for what becomes an agreement then we would expect the Middlesbrough players to put claims in against Derby county for lost promotion bonuses and expected contract increases, what would your view be? To pay them as well? - it’s never ending and has to be stopped at source which is where the EFL are failing. I want what is best for Derby county but paying anything to Middlesbrough and Wycombe on these supposed claims is a dreadful thing to do.

[Tamworthram]

12 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

3) the years the penalties should have been applied weren't in the 20/21 season anyway

Isn't that the same as my second point?

 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 minute ago, Tamworthram said:

Isn't that the same as my second point?

 

The penalty (point 3) comes the season after the period of 'cheating' (point 2)

 

Edit: Should come the season after. SWFC was even later - should have been 18/19, but was actually 20/21. All other cases were on time.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Ghost of Clough

[May Contain Nuts]

7 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

And when the Gibbon says I am not backing down what do you do then ?

Pull out the sledgehammer from under your desk and the pliers from your drawer and make good use of the office supply of zip ties.

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Unless we sold everyone to cover the shortfall ?

Something like £20m extra player profit in 19/20 and the same again in 20/21 or 21/22 would have seen us avoid any punishment.

As I've said before, in terms of P&S penalties, we're lucky to be forced into changing policy.
It's everything else that's gone off that has resulted in 'punishments' far worse than they would have been.

£20m is exactly the amount of that reserve valuation (or whatever it was called) from the Pride Park sale IIRC.  I'm fairly sure we were planning on using it to cover that particular hole (in one season at least).  The fact that the written reasons for the -9 points agreed decision explicitly mentioned it, and banned us from using it, suggests that the hold up between submitting our accounts and that decision was down to us arguing over whether we could use it. 

[Ramos]

LIVE FOOTAGE of Rick parry backed into a corner by dame Margaret during the meeting.