Championship Derby in trouble

holdsteady said:
He would of been mental giving money to Burys crook of an owner, could of just burnt it himself.
Click to expand...
Yes fair point albeit a bid could have been made for them. Less complicated at Macc I think where they just ran out of money and were wound up.

I'm just not clear why he's getting involved now when iirc he was very silent on clubs nearer to home, in particular Bury given his family ties. Perhaps Wayne's asked him to?
 
oufc1991 said:
Good old EFL bottle jobs I don't remember bury or Macclesfield getting extra time to prove they had funds but I spose derby are a big fish
Click to expand...

The 1st Feb deadline for proof of funds was a date plucked from thin air and missing that date wouldn't have resulted in Derby being instantly expelled from the league.
They've effectively raised £1m throughout January which has satisfied the EFL enough to roll back this date for another month (again, bit of a random date).
Derby's administration is a very different one to that faced by many other clubs - it came from nowhere, isn't directly linked to their FFP and Amortisation charges, and is very much the choosing of Mel Morris rather than what was actually required i.e. he chose to stop putting in his funding rather than the club running out of money (similar, but different enough to be two different things)


Bury got numerous extensions across time (much like Bolton), their main reason for being expelled (not officially liquidated even still) was because no-one wanted to deal with their owner who seemed completely unrealistic and not particularly bothered about the situation. They also only ever had one serious interested buyer and with that bid collapsing very late for the reasons in the previous sentence, that was it.

Macclesfield an entirely different situation as they were facing a winding up order which had nothing to do with the EFL. At no time were Macclesfield asked to provide proof of funds to show they could get to the end of the season. They completed the season and were wound up after the season finished, the winding up order in question had been adjourned 11 times over 18 months prior to the final hearing.
 
Last edited:
Front Post said:
The 1st Feb deadline for proof of funds was a date plucked from thin air and missing that date wouldn't have resulted in Derby being instantly expelled from the league.
They've effectively raised £1m throughout January which has satisfied the EFL enough to roll back this date for another month (again, bit of a random date).
Derby's administration is a very different one to that faced by many other clubs - it came from nowhere, isn't directly linked to their FFP and Amortisation charges, and is very much the choosing of Mel Morris rather than what was actually required i.e. he chose to stop putting in his funding rather than the club running out of money (similar, but different enough to be two different things)


Bury got numerous extensions across time (much like Bolton), their main reason for being expelled (not officially liquidated even still) was because no-one wanted to deal with their owner who seemed completely unrealistic and not particularly bothered about the situation. They also only ever had one serious interested buyer and with that bid collapsing very late for the reasons in the previous sentence, that was it.

Macclesfield an entirely different situation as they were facing a winding up order which had nothing to do with the EFL. At no time were Macclesfield asked to provide proof of funds to show they could get to the end of the season. They completed the season and were wound up after the season finished, the winding up order in question had been adjourned 11 times over 18 months prior to the final hearing.
Click to expand...
Not exactly... February 1st was initially the date provided to EFL by Derby's administrators as the date they believe they will run out of cash, which is why this was made the deadline to prove proof of funds. That was supposed to be proof of funding the rest of the season, but they have managed to provide proof of funding for a further month, which is why the deadline has now been extended by 1 month.

IMO Derby certainly won't face liquidation, they have interested bidders, in particular Mike Ashley, who will step in as late as possible to get the very best price for the club, in the hope the Wycombe/Mboro claims have gone by that point. This could lead to Derby losing their EFL status like Bury, but without the club necessarily winding up. It will then be a case of reapplying to enter at an appropriate point. That's my expectation anyway, although as we know, anything can happen...
 
WuTang said:
Not exactly... February 1st was initially the date provided to EFL by Derby's administrators as the date they believe they will run out of cash, which is why this was made the deadline to prove proof of funds. That was supposed to be proof of funding the rest of the season, but they have managed to provide proof of funding for a further month, which is why the deadline has now been extended by 1 month.

IMO Derby certainly won't face liquidation, they have interested bidders, in particular Mike Ashley, who will step in as late as possible to get the very best price for the club, in the hope the Wycombe/Mboro claims have gone by that point. This could lead to Derby losing their EFL status like Bury, but without the club necessarily winding up. It will then be a case of reapplying to enter at an appropriate point. That's my expectation anyway, although as we know, anything can happen...
Click to expand...

Not quite. It was a general guide provided as when they'd be able to provide an update based on a whole list of "cash-finding" initiatives that were to be worked through during January. They could have picked any date from now for the next couple of weeks. February 1st was just convenient as start of a month.
There was never any danger of running out of actual cash by February 1st because the list of initiatives was going to be worked through, all parties have known this which is why the administrators haven't been too concerned about naming the "preferred bidder" despite what they may say in public and why despite the apparently ticking timebomb, no-one has been too concerned.

Ashley was shown around over a couple of days last week and in terms of "desire to do business" is leading the candidate. Andy Appleby and Jez Moxey are rapidly losing confidence that any takeover can be completed within the time limit they'd set out from their point of view, and may well pull out in the next few days. The American consortium are the only ones to put a full bid down at £28m, but haven't backed it up with as much desire as Ashley, probably because it's a representative doing the work at the moment, rather than the individuals involved.

This morning's statement is the first time, that the EFL and the administrators have actually released something jointly, because now they are both back on the same project timeline again i.e. the cash-finding initiatives for January are complete, and the focus can now be focusing on the bidders.
 
Last edited:
Go bust or get Ashley ............... what a lovely choice. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

Relegate them to the Conference and see how "big" they are then.
 
Front Post said:
The 1st Feb deadline for proof of funds was a date plucked from thin air and missing that date wouldn't have resulted in Derby being instantly expelled from the league.
They've effectively raised £1m throughout January which has satisfied the EFL enough to roll back this date for another month (again, bit of a random date).
Derby's administration is a very different one to that faced by many other clubs - it came from nowhere, isn't directly linked to their FFP and Amortisation charges, and is very much the choosing of Mel Morris rather than what was actually required i.e. he chose to stop putting in his funding rather than the club running out of money (similar, but different enough to be two different things)


Bury got numerous extensions across time (much like Bolton), their main reason for being expelled (not officially liquidated even still) was because no-one wanted to deal with their owner who seemed completely unrealistic and not particularly bothered about the situation. They also only ever had one serious interested buyer and with that bid collapsing very late for the reasons in the previous sentence, that was it.

Macclesfield an entirely different situation as they were facing a winding up order which had nothing to do with the EFL. At no time were Macclesfield asked to provide proof of funds to show they could get to the end of the season. They completed the season and were wound up after the season finished, the winding up order in question had been adjourned 11 times over 18 months prior to the final hearing.
Click to expand...
Derby should pay what they owe as soon as they’re taken over but no doubt a deal will Be struck with HMRC and the EFL will step in over the Middlesbrough and Wycombe issues…..Derby are getting more help because of who they are not because they’re a Macclesfield or Bury club.
 
bazzer9461 said:
Derby should pay what they owe as soon as they’re taken over but no doubt a deal will Be struck with HMRC and the EFL will step in over the Middlesbrough and Wycombe issues…..Derby are getting more help because of who they are not because they’re a Macclesfield or Bury club.
Click to expand...

Again you're comparing very different situations.

Most clubs strike deals with HMRC - Southend have been doing it for years, Wigan's new owners, Bolton's new owners, Oldham's etc etc. None of them waltzed in and paid every penny going at the point they took over. It rarely ever happens that way.

Macclesfield's were wound up over multiple debts including a tax one.
Bury were expelled from the football league but not wound up.
 
Front Post said:
Again you're comparing very different situations.

Most clubs strike deals with HMRC - Southend have been doing it for years, Wigan's new owners, Bolton's new owners, Oldham's etc etc. None of them waltzed in and paid every penny going at the point they took over. It rarely ever happens that way.

Macclesfield's were wound up over multiple debts including a tax one.
Bury were expelled from the football league but not wound up.
Click to expand...
But didn’t Parry say they are more prestigious in reference to the comparison with Bury?
 
bazzer9461 said:
Can’t remember if it was in a football site or in the press but definitely was reported as coming from Parry.
Click to expand...

If there's no evidence of it then there's a good chance it's not true.
 
m said:
If there's no evidence of it then there's a good chance it's not true.
Click to expand...
Seriously I did read that may have been one of the Sundays papers when apparently he was asked about Bury and the reply was Derby are more prestigious something to do with the February 1st day and Parry saying that could be extended to help Derby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
League One Derby V Burton
Replies
9
Views
584
MarkG
MarkG
M
Spanish Football Madrid Derby in Saudi Arabia
Replies
16
Views
850
Orkney Islands Yellow
Orkney Islands Yellow
chuckbert
Other - Rest of the World Melbourne derby pitch invasion
Replies
15
Views
2K
Marked Ox
M
Essexyellows
Championship FA Cup, Derby et al.....
2
Replies
20
Views
4K
Essexyellows
Essexyellows
stokeu
Non-League Abingdon derby...
Replies
2
Views
2K
SteMerritt
SteMerritt
Back
Top Bottom