chinapig

As per title. Everton claimed their Covid losses were far greater than other clubs, which was always fishy. Still, the Premier League has been investigating Man City for 3 years so Everton are in no imminent danger.? https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/may/20/leeds-burnley-ask-premier-league-investigate-everton-over-pandemic-spending-rules

Difficult to discern what rational argument might underlie this rant but it looks like whataboutery, perhaps to do with tax avoidance. Like saying "I stole £10 but that person over there stole £50 so I should be let off". There is a difference between tax avoidance through legal means (much as I dislike much of it) and simply not paying your taxes then expecting the taxpayer at large to take the hit. As I say, the argument is not entirely clear but suffice it to say that once you start hurling abuse you have probably lost the debate anyway.

@Derby_Ram, who seems to have very good sources, says above that it won't be the council buying the stadium so this may be academic.

Remember Joe Bryan saying his hamstrings were like cheese strings when he was here? I'm sure he wasn't the only one to feel like that. Something the previous regime seemed to do nothing about. In fact they seem to have made things worse. As others have said Rennie could be our most important signing. Great to see us at the cutting edge on this.

You're suggesting what should happen and I sympathise. I'm suggesting what I think will happen, i.e. nothing. Unless the media take it up as a cause perhaps but, with 1 or 2 exceptions, they are either 1. not interested, 2. uninformed or 3. only interested in Wayne Rooney, so that's unlikely.

Intriguing. If not the council and not Kirchner, who? Steve Gibson perhaps??

Exactly the point I have made before. Unless I am missing something the 2 statements can't both be true as you say. If HMRC are confident in their case and figures why would they expect a court to determine a lower amount? And it would only take one case that doesn't meet their criteria for their claims to be disproved. It's probably not wise to say "we never do x" or "we always do y". Frankly I think the whole press release is a case of them protesting too much.

I suspect other clubs who pay their taxes will have something to say but I doubt politicians or indeed the media will be bothered.

I keep referring to sweetheart deals so people can judge for themselves here whether letting a business off paying 65% of its liability is consistent with what HMRC claims: https://farnellclarke.co.uk/news-and-resources/articles/hmrc-sweetheart-deals/ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hmrc-responses-to-inaccurate-claims#hmrc-does-not-do-sweetheart-deals-with-anyone

I'm sure the local MPs will want to take credit for saving the club but I don't think there is any political conspiracy. Much more likely that HMRC will have no problem putting a small club out of business but not a major one. Bad PR as they would get the blame for Derby's demise regardless of Morris being the one and only culprit. But of course HMRC don't do sweetheart deals, honest guv.?

We don't need that much to close any FFP gap. So chances are Nigel would be allowed to spend some of the fee, unless Steve wants to reduce the overall debt in addition to complying with FFP.

They'd better have a provisional deal in place already, time is running out.

Thanks as ever. So: 1. Kirchner doesn't want to deal with Morris. Who would? 2. But Morris has to sell the stadium, presumably to DCC. 3. Then Kirchner has to agree a lease with them (possibly already done in principle). But if Morris doesn't sell the stadium in time, or at all, Derby have nowhere to play so no EFL approval? Either things are already sorted pending the paperwork or they are sailing close to the wind still.

So Quantuma are saying the deal is conditional on the sale of the stadium but the EFL is referring to a lease on the stadium. Are these the same thing? The EFL makes no reference to the creditors. Can we then take it that an agreement has been reached with them with which the EFL is satisfied?

I share your anger but the problem is (and this is something Derby fans seem totally unable to grasp) that the EFL is not Rick Parry, not its Board, it's the 72 clubs. Those clubs, including Derby (again their fans don't seem to get this), decide on the rules. So the owners certainly want sanctions but there will be a limit to how draconian they want them to be out of self interest. A case of "if I get my club into a mess I don't want to carry the can for it being expelled". Note also that you are not automatically disqualified from owning a second club if you have taken a first into administration. As to HMRC, let's just say it's claim that it always insists on the full sum owed being paid doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. I'll repeat the cliche that if you owe them £100 you have a problem, if you owe them £1m they have a problem. Edit: My point was that if you have continuous monitoring you could deduct points in respect of each and every month a club fails to pay its taxes in full and on time. Which will deter any owner who fancies taking a tax holiday every now and then.

Maybe but it isn't going to happen for the reasons I gave. Which means Morris can walk away - probably with £20m from local council tax payers as well to pay off his debt to MSD. What the late Christopher Hitchens described as socialism for the rich.?

I see, thanks. EFL regs already require this but as we have seen with Derby you can get away with it for years before you are sanctioned and then only pay 35% of the bill. As a minimum we need continuous monitoring by the EFL and immediate sanctions, preferably points deductions, for failing to pay in full and on time. Parry has promised to beef up the monitoring resources so we shall see. In the meantime the taxpayer is screwed with no consequences for the culprit.

Can you expand Dave? In what sense can UEFA impact on HMRC policy?

Your response is correct no doubt and of course there is no ethical dimension in the sense that the Morrises of this world tend to see paying taxes as rather optional. Why pay up when you can spend £10m on a player instead - and not pay that debt either - and have the fans adoring you? Banks don't lend to football clubs because they are too high risk and it won't look good for them if they put a club out of business if it defaults. They know they would get the blame rather than the owner. HMRC is in the same position. Though nobody is much bothered if they put a little club out of business (apart from 5 minutes of crocodile tears from the media) if they were to liquidate a club the size of Derby they would be portrayed as the evil empire. So they'll give the club leeway they wouldn't give to some poor sod running a small business in Derby and accept a fraction of what is due. The only way football is going to get it's act together is if it's forced to by a regulator but if that doesn't happen then sooner or later HMRC is going to have to put a significant club out of business to encourage the others to comply.

Plus Nigel dismissed what he called conspiracy theories about Pring and went on to say how well he had done.

Who knows? There has largely been silence about this. There have been claims that HMRC have accepted 35p in the £ to be paid over 3 years but I haven't seen any reputable source confirm this. Others may have though. In January HMRC made a statement insisting they do not do sweetheart deals and always insist on the full amount due being paid. But in the same statement they said they never accept less than a court would award, which seems like a bit of a get out clause. If they settle for 35p they are going to set a precedent (though not a legal one I think) and possibly get a backlash from clubs who pay their taxes in full. I still think this one will run and run.

In a statement, Quantuma said the exchange was "conditional on the sale of the stadium, EFL approval and receiving secured creditor consent". https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61475788 So just minor admin stuff then.

Which might also explain why he wants to keep Wells.

Presumably Lech will have to take their case to FIFA then? Which kicks the can down the road.

I'm grateful you brought such positive news to our attention but nonsense about people being triggered by the word stonewall detracts from it. I'm happy to accept that was not your intention though.