Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County

havanatopia

By havanatopia
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Ska Junkie

Ska Junkie

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It appears to be the minimum amount needed to cover the MSD Administration Loan (say £5m), Administrators Fees and Costs (say £3m), Football Creditors in full (say £10m), 25% to everyone else (£10m out of £40m).

Still needs a CVA or a reconstruction.  If HMRC say 'no' it won't happen.

Why, with all possible respect, would the HMRC accept 25% Hxj? It's a very dangerous precedent isn't it?

I guess, if, god forbid, you did liquidate, they would get nothing but wouldn't it leave every club the possibility of doing the same thing i.e. not pay the tax man?

That said, I wish Derby well.

Edited by Ska Junkie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hxj

Hxj

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Ska Junkie said:

would the HMRC accept 25% Hxj?

If they follow their published position they will vote 'no' in a CVA and they are owed more than enough to stop any CVA happening.  They fought long and hard to get their 'Preferential' status back so I doubt that they will want to roll over at the first hurdle.  That said MPs will be all over HMRC's senior management.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BTRFTG

BTRFTG

Posted
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It appears to be the minimum amount needed to cover the MSD Administration Loan (say £5m), Administrators Fees and Costs (say £3m), Football Creditors in full (say £10m), 25% to everyone else (£10m out of £40m).

Still needs a CVA or a reconstruction.  If HMRC say 'no' it won't happen.

I thought MSD were owed £20m (£15m + recent loans) and other football creditors around £10m. HMRC was around £28m and Morris himself around £124m.

Is there any suggestion that MSD take the ground in lieu of debt with Morris writing off all his debt? If so, I suppose an injection of around £30 could be a starting point but that's a massive 'if' and still assumes HMRC will cut a deal. That said I guess HMRC would recoup more by taking 50% than they would becoming a preferential creditor. But £30m is a lot for a Div 1 outfit with no ground.

Edited by BTRFTG
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lanterne Rouge

Lanterne Rouge

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Hxj said:

If they follow their published position they will vote 'no' in a CVA and they are owed more than enough to stop any CVA happening.  They fought long and hard to get their 'Preferential' status back so I doubt that they will want to roll over at the first hurdle.  That said MPs will be all over HMRC's senior management.

Isn`t the 25% to HMRC up front the only way they will agree to a payment plan?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hxj

Hxj

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I thought MSD were owed £20m (£15m + recent loans) and other football creditors around £10m. HMRC was around £28m and Morris himself around £124m.

After a short break ?

MSD is £20m in the Statement of Affairs for the Administration, plus the loan since then.  Morris is owed nothing by the Football Club, his debt comes in at the ultimate parent.

I'd assume that any transaction is at the Football Club level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AnotherDerbyFan

AnotherDerbyFan

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I see Dylan Williams is reported to have been sold for decent money despite having played few first team matches 

I wonder if that's to do with him being on a second year scholar's contract out of the Academy such if they go bust he immediately goes on a free?

Decent money isn't £500k.

Stuck on a scholarship contract as a professional contract would have meant he was unavailable for the first team. Crazy rules. It basically left the club with the choice of accepting an offer now or letting it go to tribunal.

That takes us to 6 youngsters who have left to join Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea over the past 3 seasons for a combined £3m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SBB

SBB

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Decent money isn't £500k.

Stuck on a scholarship contract as a professional contract would have meant he was unavailable for the first team. Crazy rules. It basically left the club with the choice of accepting an offer now or letting it go to tribunal.

That takes us to 6 youngsters who have left to join Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea over the past 3 seasons for a combined £3m.

That’s actually quite sad, I have to say. Being able to develop and possibly sell homegrown players is huge for clubs like ours. All the early years investment without reaping the rewards of first team appearances and or decent transfer fees. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BTRFTG

BTRFTG

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Decent money isn't £500k.

Stuck on a scholarship contract as a professional contract would have meant he was unavailable for the first team. Crazy rules. It basically left the club with the choice of accepting an offer now or letting it go to tribunal.

That takes us to 6 youngsters who have left to join Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea over the past 3 seasons for a combined £3m.

I didn't realise until HXJ pointed out about the situation re registrations should you go under. He'd automatically be a free agent on those terms, don't know about your other kids sold,  but worrying for you if it reeks of them going as the administrators ensure they maximize all returns come worst case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, SBB said:

That’s actually quite sad, I have to say. Being able to develop and possibly sell homegrown players is huge for clubs like ours. All the early years investment without reaping the rewards of first team appearances and or decent transfer fees. 

We’ve lost players over the years too, Herbie Kane, Jacob Maddox, etc.

Edited by Davefevs
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ska Junkie

Ska Junkie

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Hxj said:

No - they can be remarkably flexible in the right circumstances.

I assume the payment scheme would be part of a CVA, so similar to an IVA for an individual, where monies in and out are strictly controlled for the period of the CVA?

Edited by Ska Junkie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BTRFTG

BTRFTG

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hxj said:

It's rare to see a CVA continue beyond any initial payment due to the nature of a corporate entity.  

I'm not sure of the breakdown of that owed HMRC , I assume it mostly VAT, though is it not still the case that if income tax / NI has been deducted at source but not paid over that the individual remains liable in those sums?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hxj

Hxj

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

I'm not sure of the breakdown of that owed HMRC , I assume it mostly VAT, though is it not still the case that if income tax / NI has been deducted at source but not paid over that the individual remains liable in those sums?

It's second preferential debt, so that will be PAYE/Employees' NIC and VAT.  Given the known circumstances it will be nearly impossible for HMRC to recover anything off anyone else

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AnotherDerbyFan

AnotherDerbyFan

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Jerseybean said:

Derby get rid of a fourth player this month….https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-chelsea-williams-transfer-6537945

5th

6 minutes ago, Hxj said:

And a fifth: Confirmed: Derby County announce midfielder transfer - Derbyshire Live (derbytelegraph.co.uk) - Although I would count that as a 'Britton' type deal

Plus meetings with EFL called off due to positive progress.

6th

Marshall, Baldock, Jagielka and Shinnie are the others.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Administrators have received at least 1 official bid which meets the requirements set by the EFL.
Previous offers on the table were conditional upon the Boro/Wycombe claims being ignored.

Thanks, so the Carlisle Capital bid I assume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Thanks, so the Carlisle Capital bid I assume.

Maybe Ashley. Tbf, I've googled and whilst I can see the EFL statement about postponing the meeting and the positive developments, this is the closest I can fid to evidence that those developments constitute an 'official bid which meets the requirements set by the EFL'.

@AnotherDerbyFan do you have a source for that?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hxj

Hxj

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Anyone else think the sale will go through next Monday and Derby will then be given `special dispensation` to sign players outside of the window?

No to the first bit - if it's by way of a CVA then they still need to complete that process.

As regards the second bit they already can - might need to dispose of one or two first though!

From EFL Official Website - Embargoes + Embargo Reporting Service – Q&A External

Under what circumstances can a Club operating under an Embargo sign players?

Outside of a Transfer Window

Outside of a transfer window, Clubs can only register Out of Registration players (free agents) and Clubs can only register Out of Registration players if they have less than 16 players of Professional Standing (2x Goalkeepers, 14x Outfield Players)

Professional Standing = is any Player who has made one first team appearance (including as a sub) for any Club in any first team competition (EFL Trophy appearances do not count).

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hxj

Hxj

Posted
Posted
On 22/01/2022 at 00:59, Ska Junkie said:

I assume the payment scheme would be part of a CVA

I've thought of another problem with this.  It would amount to arrears of PAYE under the current EFL regulations, and therefore an Embargo for as long as any debt is outstanding!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bristol Rob

Bristol Rob

Posted
Posted

Suppose the other thing any potential buyer needs to consider is next season and beyond.

What is Championship football worth? 4mill in TV and solidarity, probably another 4 or 5 thousand on attendance per game based on a larger home/away following and higher sponsorship and corporate revenue.

Looks like Derby are going down and we know League One isn't easy to get out of, so if they have any players under contract with no relegation clause, it could be an expensive few seasons.

If they stay up, maybe there is value in owning them.

It's a gamble 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hxj said:

I've thought of another problem with this.  It would amount to arrears of PAYE under the current EFL regulations, and therefore an Embargo for as long as any debt is outstanding!

My thoughts are that they are already in breach of that if they haven’t paid NI and IT…or is it all VAT?

37 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Suppose the other thing any potential buyer needs to consider is next season and beyond.

What is Championship football worth? 4mill in TV and solidarity, probably another 4 or 5 thousand on attendance per game based on a larger home/away following and higher sponsorship and corporate revenue.

Looks like Derby are going down and we know League One isn't easy to get out of, so if they have any players under contract with no relegation clause, it could be an expensive few seasons.

If they stay up, maybe there is value in owning them.

It's a gamble 

Might be taking minus 15 points into next season in Lg1

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hxj said:

No to the first bit - if it's by way of a CVA then they still need to complete that process.

I don't remember the details of creditors meetings. Is there a method to shorten notice periods and the like if you can get unanimous creditor consent? You know, liek there is with AGMs and shareholder meetings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hxj

Hxj

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

My thoughts are that they are already in breach of that if they haven’t paid NI and IT…or is it all VAT?

They are in breach currently.  And they will remain in breach until the debt is cleared.  So if they do a four year payment plan then they could be in an Embargo for four years, significantly in excess of the Administration embargo.

23 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I don't remember the details of creditors meetings. Is there a method to shorten notice periods and the like if you can get unanimous creditor consent?

Not as far as I am aware.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bristol Rob

Bristol Rob

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

My thoughts are that they are already in breach of that if they haven’t paid NI and IT…or is it all VAT?

Might be taking minus 15 points into next season in Lg1

Can they start a season in administration?

Or is it the conference that doesn't accept teams in admin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jan/25/derby-county-what-is-going-on-and-will-club-survive-key-questions-answered

The Guardian is now suggesting HMRC may accept significantly less than they are owed.

Hell of a precedent. Perhaps all clubs could now withhold tax payments on the grounds that they can't afford to pay?

  • Like 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AnotherDerbyFan

AnotherDerbyFan

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, chinapig said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jan/25/derby-county-what-is-going-on-and-will-club-survive-key-questions-answered

The Guardian is now suggesting HMRC may accept significantly less than they are owed.

Hell of a precedent. Perhaps all clubs could now withhold tax payments on the grounds that they can't afford to pay?

Because these decisions are made on a case by case basis. They know this is the maximum they can get. An insistence on more results in the club folding and HMRC getting even less due to the structure of the debt and the assets at the club.

Only 6 first team players contracted beyond the summer. With compensation for other youngsters, we'd be lucky to pay back MSD and the administrators, never mind having enough left over to go to HMRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lanterne Rouge

Lanterne Rouge

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Because these decisions are made on a case by case basis. They know this is the maximum they can get. An insistence on more results in the club folding and HMRC getting even less due to the structure of the debt and the assets at the club.

Only 6 first team players contracted beyond the summer. With compensation for other youngsters, we'd be lucky to pay back MSD and the administrators, never mind having enough left over to go to HMRC.

I get your point but it doesn`t half piss off those of us who run small businesses and are patronised, intimidated, threatened and made to dance to HMRC`s tune if we try to delay paying our dues.

I`m ******* livid to be honest. I don`t care if it takes Derby twenty years to pay their tax debts as long as they do in full.

  • Like 15
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

I get your point but it doesn`t half piss off those of us who run small businesses and are patronised, intimidated, threatened and made to dance to HMRC`s tune if we try to delay paying our dues.

I`m ******* livid to be honest. I don`t care if it takes Derby twenty years to pay their tax debts as long as they do in full.

Yep, should be a payment plan. Maybe there is???

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BTRFTG

BTRFTG

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

An insistence on more results in the club folding and HMRC getting even less due to the structure of the debt and the assets at the club.

Perhaps, but long term possibly that's worth it to the taxpayer.

I think in this case HMRC should call the administrators bluff. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted (edited)

So if for example HMRC agree that Derby need only pay 25% of the debt I assume the EFL would not be able to impose another points penalty for failure to pay even though they would in fact have failed to pay 75% of what was due.

What a tangled web. Still, as long as football creditors get their money ...

But of course HMRC do not do sweetheart deals do they?

https://farnellclarke.co.uk/resources/hmrc-sweetheart-deals/

Edited by chinapig
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

I get your point but it doesn`t half piss off those of us who run small businesses and are patronised, intimidated, threatened and made to dance to HMRC`s tune if we try to delay paying our dues.

I`m ******* livid to be honest. I don`t care if it takes Derby twenty years to pay their tax debts as long as they do in full.

It's the old adage that if you owe the bank $100 it's your problem, but if you owe them $100 million it's the Bank's problem.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AnotherDerbyFan

AnotherDerbyFan

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

And isn’t that just the wrong priorities. If HMRC let this go it will be a free for all due to the precedent . They always said they would never do it and Rangers know about that .

Far better letting you fold , as someone will then resurrect Derby from non league . 

Priorities set by law ? 

As I previously said, HMRC will make judgments on a case by case basis, so that they receive as much as they possibly can.

19 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Perhaps, but long term possibly that's worth it to the taxpayer.

I think in this case HMRC should call the administrators bluff. 

There is no bluff. Selling every registered player isn't going to raise the £37m needed to exceed the offer on the table. There are no assets to sell other than players and a few bits of silverware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Priorities set by law ? 

As I previously said, HMRC will make judgments on a case by case basis, so that they receive as much as they possibly can.

There is no bluff. Selling every registered player isn't going to raise the £37m needed to exceed the offer on the table. There are no assets to sell other than players and a few bits of silverware.

Law or policy? From the HMRC press release I linked above:

‘Fact: HMRC does not do ‘sweetheart deals’. HMRC makes sure every taxpayer, no matter what their size, pays everything they owe.’

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ska Junkie

Ska Junkie

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Law or policy? From the HMRC press release I linked above:

‘Fact: HMRC does not do ‘sweetheart deals’. HMRC makes sure every taxpayer, no matter what their size, pays everything they owe.’

They missed out 'apart from Derby' by the looks of it.

Scandalous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lenred

lenred

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Priorities set by law ? 

As I previously said, HMRC will make judgments on a case by case basis, so that they receive as much as they possibly can.

There is no bluff. Selling every registered player isn't going to raise the £37m needed to exceed the offer on the table. There are no assets to sell other than players and a few bits of silverware.

They should be receiving it all. Every single penny. Your club bet on 18 red and came up short. If that’s as part of a Payment plan then so be it. If that means you have to sell every asset you have and start at the bottom again so be it.  If Derby do not have to pay it sets a very worrying precedent, as others have said, and I personally think that would be unacceptable.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

Don't bother paying 75% of the tax bill then City. If it's ok for Derby etc etc.

Steve won't do that of course but if the Guardian report turns out to be correct there will doubtless be an uproar from some, maybe many, clubs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
davidoldfart

davidoldfart

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

I get your point but it doesn`t half piss off those of us who run small businesses and are patronised, intimidated, threatened and made to dance to HMRC`s tune if we try to delay paying our dues.

I`m ******* livid to be honest. I don`t care if it takes Derby twenty years to pay their tax debts as long as they do in full.

They have already collected the VAT and NIC etc but spent it on players that no other club could afford. Make them pay in full..we already have one tax payer subsidised club in West Ham !!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Hxj said:

They are in breach currently.  And they will remain in breach until the debt is cleared.  So if they do a four year payment plan then they could be in an Embargo for four years, significantly in excess of the Administration embargo.

Surely that would only kick in if Derby were in default of the new arrangement?

Eg if HMRC let them pay x now and then there was  a payment plan for the remainder a default only kicks in when that new rearranged plan is defaulted on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted

I also hope that the EFL come back on the following:

1) The rent tied to the 2018 transaction, for FFP purposes if nothing else.

2) Perhaps revisit the 2018 valuation issue if Pride Park goes back for significantly less.

As for HMRC, don't see why they couldn't take £x up front, and then a chunk, a % of their annual income each season into such time as it is paid back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hxj

Hxj

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

Because these decisions are made on a case by case basis. They know this is the maximum they can get. An insistence on more results in the club folding and HMRC getting even less due to the structure of the debt and the assets at the club.

The problem with this is that it runs counter to published HMRC guidance on their position, the following comes from VAS help sheet (publishing.service.gov.uk).

 

Screenshot 2022-01-25 152140.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yellow&Blue&Red

Yellow&Blue&Red

Posted
Posted

It's really unfair that Derby are getting away without paying their full debts but forcing them to fail doesn't help anyone. This way HMRC get £xM tax back which would otherwise be lost. Wycombe and Middlesbrough get their claims adjudicated and possibly awarded damages (I really hope they do in Wycombe's case). And the club gets to live on. Mel Morris's crazy failed gamble shouldn't be at the cost of the whole club - all the people who work for it and all the people who support it. I know lots of the supporters were cheering him on, but it's him that's responsible, not them. Putting it out of business punishes people who weren't responsible, in the harshest possible way. Even if the supporters were responsible, forcing it out of existence isn't remotely proportionate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ska Junkie

Ska Junkie

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

It's really unfair that Derby are getting away without paying their full debts but forcing them to fail doesn't help anyone. This way HMRC get £xM tax back which would otherwise be lost. Wycombe and Middlesbrough get their claims adjudicated and possibly awarded damages (I really hope they do in Wycombe's case). And the club gets to live on. Mel Morris's crazy failed gamble shouldn't be at the cost of the whole club - all the people who work for it and all the people who support it. I know lots of the supporters were cheering him on, but it's him that's responsible, not them. Putting it out of business punishes people who weren't responsible, in the harshest possible way. Even if the supporters were responsible, forcing it out of existence isn't remotely proportionate!

While I totally agree with your sentiment, Derby County should still be help accountable where the HMRC is concerned, even if it takes them years to pay it off. Letting them off the proceeds of sticking 2 fingers up at the tax man (which we would all love to do) is just wrong, the HMRC should not set a precedent IMHO, Derby should face that bill, in full or it cause them discomfort until it's settled.

Edited by Ska Junkie
  • Like 7
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...