Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County

havanatopia

By havanatopia
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Waconda

Waconda

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Monkeh said:

It's not the efl's responsibility to sort Derby County out, that's the administrators responsibility,

The efls responsibility is to make sure clubs stick to the rules, Derby didn't do this and has been punished,

Derby have the money to forfil their fixtures and should be alloud too,

 

Glad you agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hxj

Hxj

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'll leave others who know more about it than me but wondering how it all works

These are loan notes issued by MSD UK Holdings Ltd, in other words they receive cash, probably from MSD (Tax Haven) Ltd.  The reason that they are quoted on a stock exchange is that any interest that is paid on them is exempt from UK taxation if it is received by a non-UK resident.

MSD UK will lend the funds received to a borrower, say DCFC, at at interest rate such that it makes a reasonable margin, which is taxed in the UK.

Edited by Hxj
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1960maaan

1960maaan

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Monkeh said:

It's not the efl's responsibility to sort Derby County out, that's the administrators responsibility,

The efls responsibility is to make sure clubs stick to the rules, Derby didn't do this and has been punished,

Derby have the money to forfil their fixtures and should be alloud too,

 

But do they though ?

Didn't I read there was some doubt bout paying players ? That in it's self could bring more sanctions .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
East Londoner

East Londoner

Posted
Posted

It appears after agreeing a price to buy Preston Kirchner twice came back with lower bids.

That should ring a few alarm bells and it’s beginning to look like Portsmouth did when they were in trouble and i wouldn’t be surprised to see them back in administration again assuming they come out of it this time 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted

Still has to pass the EFL's requirements if Derby want to remain in the EFL. 

Presumably this is a deal that a) doesn't pay 25% to all creditors, but b) does pay football creditors in full, and c) doesn't include the stadium.

The club and Q are desperate, and have acted desperately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Still has to pass the EFL's requirements if Derby want to remain in the EFL. 

Presumably this is a deal that a) doesn't pay 25% to all creditors, but b) does pay football creditors in full, and c) doesn't include the stadium.

The club and Q are desperate, and have acted desperately. 

By paying in full, re HMRC would that cover 25% now and the rest on a payment plan?

Im really uncomfortable with using public money to buy the ground, but not paying HMRC.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ScottishRed

ScottishRed

Posted
Posted

I am completely uncomfortable with that too.

I doubt it will happen, HMRC have no sympathy towards football, quite the opposite and rightly so.

There are two reasons why this won’t happen,

1. It sets a massively dangerous precedent in all businesses not just football clubs. But as regards football what if a club splashed out a record transfer fee for a player and then didn’t bother paying the tax man their monthly dues!

2. The current very real pressure on government finances makes this a true political hot potato that the public in general, regardless of political allegiances would view in a very bad light.

HMRC are not known for their benevolent nature, it is a non- starter, and rightly so.

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

By paying in full, re HMRC would that cover 25% now and the rest on a payment plan?

Im really uncomfortable with using public money to buy the ground, but not paying HMRC.

 

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

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

By paying in full, re HMRC would that cover 25% now and the rest on a payment plan?

Im really uncomfortable with using public money to buy the ground, but not paying HMRC.

I suspect you could negotiate that payment plans can constitute payment "in full".

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Guess a failed payment would lead to grim circumstances 

Any payment plan would presumably have to be in writing, enforceable, a condition of the sale etc. Enforceable in court if defaulted on etc. It would be reasonable as well for HMRC to request a guarantor, possibly one of Kirchner's other companies. 

There might be something in the EFL regs or articles that says that payment "in full" is specifically full settlement, in cash, at the point of exit from administration, but that would be surprising, and inconsistent with other common legal definitions of what constitutes "payment".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1960maaan

1960maaan

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Guess a failed payment would lead to grim circumstances 

 

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Any payment plan would presumably have to be in writing, enforceable, a condition of the sale etc. Enforceable in court if defaulted on etc. It would be reasonable as well for HMRC to request a guarantor, possibly one of Kirchner's other companies. 

There might be something in the EFL regs or articles that says that payment "in full" is specifically full settlement, in cash, at the point of exit from administration, but that would be surprising, and inconsistent with other common legal definitions of what constitutes "payment".

I always start these posts with a disclaimer. I know **** all about finances etc, but.

If I remember correctly, when the Glaziers bought Man You, they put the entire debt on the club. The Football profits basically paying for them to buy the club, I thought at the time it sounded shady, but modern finance etc. I'm not sure if the rules have changed, or whether the EFL/HMRC would need a substantial down payment to cover the "football debts". A payment plan for a company that has lost fortunes, working in a business that perpetually runs at a loss does not sound like a good place to trust for repayment plans over any period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Any payment plan would presumably have to be in writing, enforceable, a condition of the sale etc. Enforceable in court if defaulted on etc. It would be reasonable as well for HMRC to request a guarantor, possibly one of Kirchner's other companies. 

There might be something in the EFL regs or articles that says that payment "in full" is specifically full settlement, in cash, at the point of exit from administration, but that would be surprising, and inconsistent with other common legal definitions of what constitutes "payment".

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/b3cd34c726c341ca9636610aa4503172/regulations-season-2021-22-final.pdf
 

this has more detail than the EFL website rules pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

By paying in full, re HMRC would that cover 25% now and the rest on a payment plan?

Im really uncomfortable with using public money to buy the ground, but not paying HMRC.

I do agree- I can see a commercial rationale ground wise if it's on full commercial arms length no favours terms- but I certainly agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

IF this is true, that's misconduct!  Potentially?

image.png.2379ab430e95a309fc1957fce9e24a35.png

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appendix-3-owners-and-directors-test/

image.png.27933f33974ade08b45d06e64a43cb9a.png

image.png.91825a1bdf66ed3756fae0c1eb3d340d.png

One for you perhaps @Hxj could this not constitute misconduct?

I think the word "completed" is being mis-used. I don't think they mean the deal "completed" in the sense that Derby exited Admin and Kirchner bought the club - ie the shares in Derby County Football Club Ltd are now in Kirchner's name. More that negotiations to sketch out all the terms of the deal "completed".

Surely Q are not stupid enough to actually "complete" the sale without obtaining EFL approval first. They've sought EFL approval/consultation at other times.

I think this is just someone on Twitter being inaccurate with their language.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I think the word "completed" is being mis-used. I don't think they mean the deal "completed" in the sense that Derby exited Admin and Kirchner bought the club - ie the shares in Derby County Football Club Ltd are now in Kirchner's name. More that negotiations to sketch out all the terms of the deal "completed".

Surely Q are not stupid enough to actually "complete" the sale without obtaining EFL approval first. They've sought EFL approval/consultation at other times.

I think this is just someone on Twitter being inaccurate with their language.

Thanks, yeah- that'd make sense somewhat. Although I have to say that there was talk that they were being sparing with info in certain areas- will check CH in a minute, doubt there is any movement on that yet but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)

I wonder too, have Wycombe just shelved their claim, agreed to stay it to be heard when DCFC have a new owner, forgotten all about it or what? :dunno:

Tbh the Tweets are shocking by Kirchner, can't be condoned, all the same how many owners would one consider to be "Fit and Proper" these days? Probably more that aren't than are, seems to be nothing about it on the Owners and Directors Test so guess the EFL couldn't block on those grounds.

Morality aside- awful tweets- is it actually a disqualifying factor? Doubtful I'd say but who knows.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I wonder too, have Wycombe just shelved their claim, agreed to stay it to be heard when DCFC have a new owner, forgotten all about it or what? :dunno:

Tbh the Tweets are shocking by Kirchner, can't be condoned, all the same how many owners would one consider to be "Fit and Proper" these days? Probably more that aren't than are, seems to be nothing about it on the Owners and Directors Test so guess the EFL couldn't block on those grounds.

Morality aside- awful tweets- is it actually a disqualifying factor? Doubtful I'd say but who knows.

On it's own it is not going to prevent him. Morality, decency etc. they're just not a part of the test.

The only way something like that could prevent one from being an owner/director would be if it led to a criminal conviction. Which it won't.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appendix-3-owners-and-directors-test/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lanterne Rouge

Lanterne Rouge

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Reading trying to make sure that option becomes a non-starter.

1-1 now.

As far as taking the hit this season wasn`t there a deadline imposed years ago when Leeds took the piss and got a deduction after they were down by more than it was? After a certain point of the season, it has to carry into the next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

1-1 now.

As far as taking the hit this season wasn`t there a deadline imposed years ago when Leeds took the piss and got a deduction after they were down by more than it was? After a certain point of the season, it has to carry into the next.

Fourth Thursday in March I think it is although strictly speaking that would be for the -12 entering admin...unsure if that applies to all kinds of points deductions, indeed the IDC in one of the cases while not applying it, upheld their right to do so if required.

In this instance, would seem fairest to apply it in the season whereby it has most effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waconda

Waconda

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Reading trying to make sure that option becomes a non-starter.

And Reading will fail, deal will go through with points taken this season.

EFL will want this done and dusted before next season.

Would be my guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Waconda said:

And Reading will fail, deal will go through with points taken this season.

EFL will want this done and dusted before next season.

Would be my guess.

Hmm, not quite there but slightly moving towards snookers now...don't takeovers in the EFL usually take a long time- when the Turkish guy took over Hull it took between 2.5-3 months until all was sealed and this was surely less complex than this. I suppose they know who Kirchner is though and there were some tests in November/December time plus with Preston.

Rule has generally been -15 the following season if it doesn't hit the Insolvency Requirements- maybe a vote of clubs to decide? EFL DOES constitute the clubs after all- I struggle to see why the EFL would hand down a deduction that while on the one hand would guarantee relegation for sure, otoh would have zero effect if as is likely they go down.

Barnsley who are 3rd bottom still have winnable home games vs Blackpool, Preston and Peterborough- they sit a point above Derby with a game in hand...

...Will let @Hxj do the honours, the full roundup!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waconda

Waconda

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Davefevs said:

https://www.kingschambers.com/assets/files/News/Kings Insolvency Issue 3Sport Insolvency.pdf
 

seems to imply that any points deduction for a team already relegated would apply the following season, plus it’s after the 4th Thursday in Match.

”sporting sanctions”

Any further points deduction will be this season.

Kirchner would've been assured of this before agreeing.

That's my guess anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hxj

Hxj

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Will let @Hxj do the honours, the full roundup!

With pleasure!!

Good results for Derby (24th) on Saturday, they beat Preston and Barnsley (22nd) drew with Reading (21st).  Last night Reading really put the boot in with a win, to make it an unbeaten 4 in a row.

Reading now on 37 points, Barnsley on 29, Derby on 28 and Peterborough on 27.  All played 40 except Barnsley on 39.  In order to overtake Reading, Derby need to take 9 more points over six games, that's 1.5 points a game, some task.

More interestingly, Derby can only do this by winning at least three games or wining 2, drawing 3 and losing one, assuming that Reading get no more points.  Based upon that scenario the earliest that Derby can get relegated is on Saturday 23 April ...

Assuming all results go against them it could be Friday 15 April against Fulham.

Of course Derby also need to get one more point than Bansley to finish ahead of them, and one less than Peterborough to stay ahead of them.

Edited by Hxj
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Waconda said:

Any further points deduction will be this season.

Kirchner would've been assured of this before agreeing.

That's my guess anyway.

It's not about guessing though is it.

The EFL have rules. They have been applying those rules. They will continue to apply those rules. 

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

It's not about guessing though is it.

The EFL have rules. They have been applying those rules. They will continue to apply those rules. 

Plus, could you imagine the reaction of the other 71 if that was waved through! Don't see how they could, surely a vote at minimum would be required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Waconda said:

Any further points deduction will be this season.

Kirchner would've been assured of this before agreeing.

That's my guess anyway.

 

You’d fit in well at Quantuma with those assurances…and a “my guess” caveat! ?

As Q hasn’t taken PB to EFL yet, Kirchner can have had no assurances, apart from ones from Q….which are worthless.

Edited by Davefevs
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You’d fit in well at Quantuma with those assurances…and a “my guess” caveat! ?

As Q hasn’t taken PB to EFL yet, Kirchner can have had no assurances, apart from ones from Q….which are worthless.

I'm sure they'll take it to the EFL imminently.?

Edited by chinapig
  • Haha 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)

Where he found it I dunno- I certainly haven't and I found the original EFL 2021/22 updated rules as far back as last June/July, bookmarked but anyway Kieran Maguire.

Anyway, sounds highly likely that if the minimum threshold is not met then it would be NEXT season. As expected. Although it mentioned a bit about schedules?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Where he found it I dunno- I certainly haven't and I found the original EFL 2021/22 updated rules as far back as last June/July, bookmarked but anyway Kieran Maguire.

Anyway, sounds highly likely that if the minimum threshold is not met then it would be NEXT season. As expected.

Prima facie next season, although there's scope for the EFL to decide differently. Can't imagine they will though, they hate Derby and everyone that lives there.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Prima facie next season, although there's scope for the EFL to decide differently. Can't imagine they will though, they hate Derby and everyone that lives there.

And according to the Derby forum Maguire is both part of the conspiracy and doesn't know anything about football finance anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
REDOXO

REDOXO

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Prima facie next season, although there's scope for the EFL to decide differently. Can't imagine they will though, they hate Derby and everyone that lives there.

That did actually make me laugh out loud! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waconda

Waconda

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

You’d fit in well at Quantuma with those assurances…and a “my guess” caveat! ?

As Q hasn’t taken PB to EFL yet, Kirchner can have had no assurances, apart from ones from Q….which are worthless.

What are you going to do when this is sorted in the next few days ?

Big hole in your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Waconda said:

What are you going to do when this is sorted in the next few days ?

Big hole in your life.

Out of interest, what did I do / post to turn you from being all “pally” with me to becoming all passive aggressive and trolling my posts?

  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
REDOXO

REDOXO

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Out of interest, what did I do / post to turn you from being all “pally” with me to becoming all passive aggressive and trolling my posts?

 Thats why the ignore button exists fella. It works great providing people don’t quote him! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jerseybean

Jerseybean

Posted
Posted

Derby County are apparently finally on their way to being bought, with the club’s administrators now accepting an offer from American businessman Chris Kirchner. The news was confirmed this morning amid reported interest from former Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Derby_Ram

Derby_Ram

Posted
Posted

Finally some movement and more hope of a club next season although frustrating that any progress took until this late in the date. I'm angry that it's taken DCC seemingly coming up with a solution to get Kirchner back to the table as to me that can only mean MM not taking a hit + HMRC/taxpayers being shafted.

Maybe it's a fan-view, and a non football council tax payer would look at it differently, but I believe long-term the council would be better off dipping into coffers now and having the benefit of the club and what that brings to the local economy but that'll only be able to be truly understood years down the line if it happens. Totally understand someone with a wholly opposite view though.

I'm nowhere convinced Kirchner will end up our owner and he's not someone I'd choose based on character; but the EFL seemed not to have an issue when he completed the F+PP test last year according to local radio. Let's see.

I think it'll fall down if a condition of his bid is on -15 this season however more encouraging is a further few twitter conversations today on the post Mr P posted from Kieran Maguire last night. Kieran has seemingly confirmed -15 wouldn't be applied next year if 25p/£ isn't met as we' then have 3 years to pay 35%. Murky, not convinced its fair, but I'll take it although come 25/26 season when we start on -15 I may change my tune.

Finally looking forward to - shock horror - talking some actual football with you ahead of next week.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:

Finally some movement and more hope of a club next season although frustrating that any progress took until this late in the date. I'm angry that it's taken DCC seemingly coming up with a solution to get Kirchner back to the table as to me that can only mean MM not taking a hit + HMRC/taxpayers being shafted.

Maybe it's a fan-view, and a non football council tax payer would look at it differently, but I believe long-term the council would be better off dipping into coffers now and having the benefit of the club and what that brings to the local economy but that'll only be able to be truly understood years down the line if it happens. Totally understand someone with a wholly opposite view though.

I'm nowhere convinced Kirchner will end up our owner and he's not someone I'd choose based on character; but the EFL seemed not to have an issue when he completed the F+PP test last year according to local radio. Let's see.

I think it'll fall down if a condition of his bid is on -15 this season however more encouraging is a further few twitter conversations today on the post Mr P posted from Kieran Maguire last night. Kieran has seemingly confirmed -15 wouldn't be applied next year if 25p/£ isn't met as we' then have 3 years to pay 35%. Murky, not convinced its fair, but I'll take it although come 25/26 season when we start on -15 I may change my tune.

Finally looking forward to - shock horror - talking some actual football with you ahead of next week.

Until we get to see what the preferred bid actual is…it’s really difficult to ascertain what the future is.  When does the bid get taken to the EFL?

Still hugely intrigued how HMRC will see DCC’s proposal to buy PP, e.g. DCC can use people’s money to buy PP (little argument there), but CKDC can then rent it whilst not having settled a £28m tax debt.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Until we get to see what the preferred bid actual is…it’s really difficult to ascertain what the future is.  When does the bid get taken to the EFL?

Still hugely intrigued how HMRC will see DCC’s proposal to buy PP, e.g. DCC can use people’s money to buy PP (little argument there), but CKDC can then rent it whilst not having settled a £28m tax debt.

We'll have to see how it pans out but Quantuma's first duty is supposed to be to the creditors.

We could end up with a situation where the taxpayer gets shafted and the local council tax payer pays for the stadium. 

All in effect to benefit Mel Morris OBE, erstwhile hero to Derby fans, a business ambassador who screwed local businesses.

To them that hath it shall be given etc.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bristol Rob

Bristol Rob

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Until we get to see what the preferred bid actual is…it’s really difficult to ascertain what the future is.  When does the bid get taken to the EFL?

Still hugely intrigued how HMRC will see DCC’s proposal to buy PP, e.g. DCC can use people’s money to buy PP (little argument there), but CKDC can then rent it whilst not having settled a £28m tax debt.

Given that property prices have exploded in the last couple of years, and Mel had PP 'independently' valued at 80mil (or whatever it was), wouldn't HMRC be all over a sale at a figure far below that from a CGT* perspective?

*Or whatever the tax is on commercial properties.

  • Like 1
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...