Derby County

[Mr Popodopolous]

No Insolvency expert but surely being in administration relieves a business of the obligation to pay tax/PAYE etc while this is ongoing?

Just stick it on the slate...

[Hxj]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Thanks to Liverpool they might be ok.

They might squeak through on Friday, but will have nothing left on Saturday for other bills.  Cashflow is now a major issue as nothing is coming in.  Plus Administrators are not in a position to 'wing' it and hope a cheque arrives.

[Hxj]

30 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

No Insolvency expert but surely being in administration relieves a business of the obligation to pay tax/PAYE etc while this is ongoing?

Just stick it on the slate...

Anything but.  If Administrators are running a business they have to pay all the bills as they become due, or potentially have a personal liability.  The modern definition of insolvency, in the sense of 'are you committing an offence by continuing to trade' is 'not being able to pay the bills as they become due.'

Edited May 13, 2022 by Hxj

[phantom]

14 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Thanks to Liverpool they might be ok.

Excuse my ignorance, but how do Liverpool affect Derby financially? 

[chinapig]

16 minutes ago, phantom said:

Excuse my ignorance, but how do Liverpool affect Derby financially? 

Liverpool have bought out the sell on clause from Kaide Gordon's earlier transfer from Derby for £500k.

[NcnsBcfc]

I know we've all gone back and forth for a long time now.

But for me, doesn't the whole Derby case boil down to the fact that Mel Morris could sort out this financial situation tomorrow if he was so inclined?

Whilst the club itself are insolvent by the looks of it. The owner has plenty of assets (including the stadium), but is now unwilling to in essence pay the bills?

All of these conspiracy theories about the EFL that Derby are putting forward about being treated harshly look completely at odds with the simple truth. Which is Morris wants to sell the club  whilst not paying any of the outstanding bills, or fund ongoing commitments?

Basically one man has pulled the plug, and called everyone's bluff?

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Which is Morris wants to sell the club  whilst not paying any of the outstanding bills, or fund ongoing commitments?

Agreed.

But it is also looking increasingly like Kirchner wants to buy the club and ground for virtually nothing.  If he was as wealthy as he says he is, he could also solve the problem.

[Bristol Rob]

This all seems set up for Mike Ashley to come in at the last minute with a take it or leave it offer.

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 hours ago, Hxj said:

Anything but.  If Administrators are running a business they have to pay all the bills as they become due, or potentially have a personal liability.  The modern definition of insolvency, in the sense of 'are you committing an offence by continuing to trade' is 'not being able to pay the bills as they become due.'

Hmm, that's a bit of a new one for me. Thought that there was a moratorium of some kind when it came to creditors and insolvency.

There seems to be no urgency for them about paying down debt, or other obligations wages aside. Although did the Statement of Affairs show PAYE etc?

1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

This all seems set up for Mike Ashley to come in at the last minute with a take it or leave it offer.

Low enough for a 15 point deduction? EFL monitored business plan with partial Embargo, 2-3 years depending on payment terms also needs to apply in full irrespective of whether it's Ashley, Kirchner, or Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.

Renegotiating a new Business Plan will also drag, a takeover can take some time at the EFL level. When Hull sold up to the Turkish guy, think that first came out in mid to late October 2021 and completion occurred or the EFL ratified in mid January 2022.

There was no complexity around stadium, no embargoes, no talk of back rent, Hull were solvent, no HMRC issue, outstanding accounts- you get the picture. Based on that kinda timescale and precedent no reason it should be expedited.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

2 hours ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I know we've all gone back and forth for a long time now.

But for me, doesn't the whole Derby case boil down to the fact that Mel Morris could sort out this financial situation tomorrow if he was so inclined?

Whilst the club itself are insolvent by the looks of it. The owner has plenty of assets (including the stadium), but is now unwilling to in essence pay the bills?

All of these conspiracy theories about the EFL that Derby are putting forward about being treated harshly look completely at odds with the simple truth. Which is Morris wants to sell the club  whilst not paying any of the outstanding bills, or fund ongoing commitments?

Basically one man has pulled the plug, and called everyone's bluff?

You mean Mel " he's wealthy enough and a lifelong Derby fan so would never leave us in a financial mess" Morris?

That's the chappy!

[Hxj]

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hmm, that's a bit of a new one for me. Thought that there was a moratorium of some kind when it came to creditors and insolvency.

There is a moratorium in that a creditor cannot sue for a debt where the company is in a formal insolvency process.  However the role as an Administrator is to act as an Officer of the Court in maximising the return the creditors existing at the date of the insolvency, racking up other debts is hard to reconcile with that role. 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

43 minutes ago, Hxj said:

There is a moratorium in that a creditor cannot sue for a debt where the company is in a formal insolvency process.  However the role as an Administrator is to act as an Officer of the Court is maximising the return the creditors existing at the date of the insolvency, racking up other debts is hard to reconcile with that role. 

Thanks, that was my understanding too.

Yes as you say appointed by the Court, to maximise the return for the creditors as of about mid to late September 2021..

...The HMRC debt has risen by £8m, the administrators fees have risen and the MSD debt is now £23-24m?

There was also the ultimately likely to be failed appeal against the administration penalty and the arguing the toss on the FFP issues. That took some valuable time out of the equation, as well as subsequently adding cost.

It's not like any football Insolvency that I have seen before so far.

I'll stick to my original prediction too. Derby won't go bust/get liquidated.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[East Londoner]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

Agreed.

But it is also looking increasingly like Kirchner wants to buy the club and ground for virtually nothing.  If he was as wealthy as he says he is, he could also solve the problem.

It’ll be interesting to see how the 95% drop in value of bitcoin this week affects Kitchener’s finances seeing as he apparently made his money in cyber currency. I’ve seen lots of accounts on twitter of people who’ve lost their life savings etc 

As for Morris i do wonder what his finances are like as it could be he can’t afford to give away Pride Park 

[ExiledAjax]

11 minutes ago, East Londoner said:

It’ll be interesting to see how the 95% drop in value of bitcoin this week affects Kitchener’s finances seeing as he apparently made his money in cyber currency. I’ve seen lots of accounts on twitter of people who’ve lost their life savings etc 

As for Morris i do wonder what his finances are like as it could be he can’t afford to give away Pride Park 

*17%. It was Terra stablecoin that tanked 95%, that's a different crypto . Bitcoin itself is still at £23.5k atm. If you bought when it was £60K then sure you're losing atm, but if you bought when it was £300 your still doing OK.

And I thought he said he'd sold it (was it actually Bitcoin that CK was on? Could have been Ethereum or any other) a couple of years ago. I expect he either got in early and bought when it was pennies, or he may have mined it and then sold. Either way, I think his wealth is in cash or traditional business now rather than still tied into crypto.

Edited May 14, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Hxj]

37 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The HMRC debt has risen by £8m

The difference isn't indicative of anything other than the directors not using the latest number, bear in mind that the August PAYE/NIC deductions are not due until 22 September, plus the September PAYE/NIC deductions for the period to the date of Administration, plus different parts of HMRC might be working different debts and then would be interest and penalties to consider.  

[REDOXO]

3 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The difference isn't indicative of anything other than the directors not using the latest number, bear in mind that the August PAYE/NIC deductions are not due until 22 September, plus the September PAYE/NIC deductions for the period to the date of Administration, plus different parts of HMRC might be working different debts and then would be interest and penalties to consider.  

Is the debt to Poznan, Arsenal etc over and above what’s been mentioned (or covered under the heading MSD debt) 

The way I am understanding at the moment DCFC owes7

1 HMRC 30m

2 MSD 24m

3 Other Clubs ??

4 Suppliers. ???

5 Utilities ????

6 Other????

7 Does not own stadium (value 2-82m)

[Hxj]

10 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Is the debt to Poznan, Arsenal etc over and above what’s been mentioned (or covered under the heading MSD debt) 

The Poznan debt doesn't appear to have been included, the UK football creditors are probably being paid off from Derby's share of central receipts

 

10 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

1 HMRC 30m

2 MSD 24m

3 Other Clubs ??

4 Suppliers. ???

5 Utilities ????

6 Other????

7 Does not own stadium (value 2-82m)

The HMRC and MSD figures are roughly correct, as at 21 March 2022 the Administrators had received unsecured creditor claims of around 3 million.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Hxj

[Hxj]

50 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

but if you bought when it was £300 your still doing OK

I bought 200 at around 50 cents around 2010 and sold out at $30 odd dollars each in 2011 .... stunning outcome at the time ... 

[chinapig]

24 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I bought 200 at around 50 cents around 2010 and sold out at $30 odd dollars each in 2011 .... stunning outcome at the time ... 

Have you made an offer to buy Derby County yet then?

[ExiledAjax]

29 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I bought 200 at around 50 cents around 2010 and sold out at $30 odd dollars each in 2011 .... stunning outcome at the time ... 

Why won't you buy Derby County then?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Presumably FIFA or UEFA would be the sanctioning body if a new owner wasn't for paying Lech Poznan.

Based on the Cardiff Sala case, 3 windows was mooted by the relevant FIFA committee. Non payment should result in a definite transfer ban however.

[Hxj]

12 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Have you made an offer to buy Derby County yet then?

I did - sadly I failed the test as I was a serious buyer.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

Have you made an offer to buy Derby County yet then?

His offer is imminent!

2 hours ago, REDOXO said:

Is the debt to Poznan, Arsenal etc over and above what’s been mentioned (or covered under the heading MSD debt) 

The way I am understanding at the moment DCFC owes7

1 HMRC 30m

2 MSD 24m

3 Other Clubs ??

4 Suppliers. ???

5 Utilities ????

6 Other????

7 Does not own stadium (value 2-82m)

Yeh, but apart from that they're financially sound.

[GlastonburyRed]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

His offer is imminent!

Yeh, but apart from that they're financially sound.

As a great man once said, these things take time!!!

[Mr Popodopolous]

The bit that I don't understand. Well amongst other things anyway.

I know they are not obliged to release accounts to CH while in administration but obviously while that remains the case it remains a breach and the Embargo should perhaps remain in its current form.

I digress, provided that all is as it should be, that the details they provided to the EFL were all on point what has prevented them from sticking them on the club website at least.

As soon as the Agreed Decision occurred, there was no reason not to release...onto the website minimum, Embargo would have been eased. Approaching 6 months on, still no accounts of any kind in the public domain for 2018/19, 2019/20 and maybe technically not due until end of June for last season...? Let alone the restated ones if applicable- 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18.

Does it take 6 months?

Edited May 14, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Nixon says that the Settlement agreed with Gibson was £3m once the stadium is sold.

Number seems fair to me but the method is curious. Little surprising that Gibson agreed to those terms- either way the reported number is far more realistic than the £45m reportedly claimed.

[Mr Popodopolous]

This won't last but while it does- and it's clear they update this often and quite quickly due to several disappearing from it.

Derby appear to have more offences or similar on here than the other 71 put together! Was approaching that point but a few have now disappeared and Derby are the winners!

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/

Can't believe they still seemingly have not submitted accounts, or filed them- otherwise published them on website and still in breach of the P&S aspect of the accounts. There's nothing to fear in them surely.

Suffice to say, an embargo of some type should remain until every last one of their charges is cleared...and then onto the 2-3 year Business Plan. Scoffing at their plight aside though, the lack of accounts and movement on this is not easy to understand.

Edited May 16, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This won't last but while it does- and it's clear they update this often and quite quickly due to several disappearing from it.

Derby appear to have more offences or similar on here than the other 71 put together! Was approaching that point but a few have now disappeared and Derby are the winners!

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/

Can't believe they still seemingly have not submitted accounts, or filed them- otherwise published them on website and still in breach of the P&S aspect of the accounts. There's nothing to fear in them surely.

I’ve screenshot it with dates, just for posterity!

[chinapig]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’ve screenshot it with dates, just for posterity!

Good for you Dave, somebody has to keep the evidence that the EFL has been persecuting Derby.

That is what you meant isn't it?

[Hxj]

All gone pear shaped again, would say imminently, but I understand that it has actually gone pear shaped!

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, Hxj said:

All gone pear shaped again, would say imminently, but I understand that it has actually gone pear shaped!

You might have an idea on this- when there is a takeover such as this- or not as the case may be.

IF he does get it over the line, Kirchner that is- would the 5 or maybe it'd be a couple less- outstanding issues on the Embargo Service remain to be resolved or would they just be wiped. Eg "Ah, no accounts for 3 years eh? No problem! New owner=new start, don't worry about all that". Or is it the case that they would be sorted as part of the takeover deal ie released/published, sent to the EFL in the full form etc.

If indicative figures are equal to the accounts over the given period then there would be no issue- and I assume that they are- so the continued hiding of them is confusing.

Edited May 16, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

…and yet they still owe Lech the instalment of Joswiak.

[chinapig]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

…and yet they still owe Lech the instalment of Joswiak.

Since when have they given a toss about paying debts? And in the EFL's eyes foreign clubs don't count as football creditors anyway. Lech will be lucky to get 25% of what they are owed.

Still, is another extension for Kirchner now imminent I wonder?

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Since when have they given a toss about paying debts? And in the EFL's eyes foreign clubs don't count as football creditors anyway. Lech will be lucky to get 25% of what they are owed.

Still, is another extension for Kirchner now imminent I wonder?

FIFA hand down transfer bans for non payment of fees- a pretty good incentive to pay up.

3 windows was what they deemed the way forward for Cardiff and Sala...I don't see any particular grounds for dispute here from Derby that they owe Lech.

[chinapig]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

FIFA hand down transfer bans for non payment of fees- a pretty good incentive to pay up.

3 windows was what they deemed the way forward for Cardiff and Sala...I don't see any particular grounds for dispute here from Derby that they owe Lech.

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

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, chinapig said:

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

They should have been laying the groundwork if they have any sense. Can't do so while Derby are in administration but think FIFA can hand down or threaten a ban quite quickly.

If Cardiff lose their case, they could certainly get a 3 window Registration ban...that's still ongoing at the CAS I believe. Precedent?

Well either ongoing or the CAS panel have retired to consider their verdict.

Edited May 16, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

Conditional sale completed last night/early this morning.

I hope the lawyers enjoy their breakfast and get some sleep.

I hope Kirchner is properly prepared for financing a football club.

Good luck to all involved.

[Hxj]

50 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Conditional sale completed last night/early this morning.

26 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Have we seen the end of this saga ? Hmmmm 

A lot of smoke and mirrors out there.

The conditions are what count.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, billywedlock said:

Have we seen the end of this saga ? Hmmmm 

The end is in sight......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. imminently!

[chinapig]

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.

Edited May 17, 2022 by chinapig

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

A lot of smoke and mirrors out there.

The conditions are what count.

 

12 minutes ago, chinapig said:

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.

Oh of course, I gave my view on conditional SPAs a few pages back.

As I said then, what he's done is presumably commit to funding, and other items, pending the conditions. As China points out here, those are not minor items.

One indicator will be filings on CH. AP01s and TM01s to change directors for example. Once they are done then we would know it is fully completed.

[East Londoner]

32 minutes ago, chinapig said:

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.

So they haven’t agreed anything with HMRC then?

[chinapig]

25 minutes ago, East Londoner said:

So they haven’t agreed anything with HMRC then?

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.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/39690-get-the-in-whats-first-priority/

This thread made me smile a little. Not one mention of something key...

Accounts. Don't see why any of the current conditions should be eased or amended until all outstanding accounts issues up to date.

HMRC wise, as china says largely radio silence on this one. If it goes to court, that could be a cram down couldn't it? The Football League were pretty hostile towards that approach in the winter although maybe that was specifically pertaining to the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims...

...Talking of the latter, Mr. Couhig should still be considering his options. Where there's blame, there's a claim. 

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

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.

Ironically the whole deal now appears to hinge on the co-operation and agreement of the man whose “market valuation” of Pride Park ,in order to duck and dive ffp, helped get DCFC into this sorry mess in the first place!

[Hxj]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

HMRC wise, as china says largely radio silence on this one.

It will be dealt with through a CVA.  No need for a 'cross class cram down' if agreed.  I can't imagine that Kirchner would sign a conditional purchase contract without the parameters of the CVA agreed by the necessary parties.  

The next big event will be the 'retained list' I think the deadline for that is Saturday, will be a big pointer to how the business plan looks.

[Mr Popodopolous]

39 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It will be dealt with through a CVA.  No need for a 'cross class cram down' if agreed.  I can't imagine that Kirchner would sign a conditional purchase contract without the parameters of the CVA agreed by the necessary parties.  

The next big event will be the 'retained list' I think the deadline for that is Saturday, will be a big pointer to how the business plan looks.

Thought Quantuma were indicating that a CVA wouldn't be necessary. 

Business Plan is surely 2-3 years with the attached type of Embargo.

No transfer fees, no loan fees, no or limited signing on fees, highly limited agents fees and that's just for a start.

Would also add a nice condition might be £1 debt written off means £1 less able to be spent on  the team for the next 2 or depending on the terms, 3 years.

The EFL need to continue to come down hard.

Oh and what about the accounts, that is itself an Embargo matter.

[ScottishRed]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

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.

 

I would be hugely surprised if HMRC agreed to this, legal or not, it is still a precedent that stretches across all businesses not just football.

I think that there will be a huge backlash from tax payers both corporate and individual who see a football club getting a sweetheart deal - it is simply not acceptable.

If the new ‘owner’ is prepared to pick-up the full bill, then no problem but it sets up a very dangerous scenario going forward. There will be companies out there queuing up to offer 35% of their tax bill rather than the full amount.

it is totally immoral if true.

[AnotherDerbyFan]

22 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

I would be hugely surprised if HMRC agreed to this, legal or not, it is still a precedent that stretches across all businesses not just football.

I think that there will be a huge backlash from tax payers both corporate and individual who see a football club getting a sweetheart deal - it is simply not acceptable.

If the new ‘owner’ is prepared to pick-up the full bill, then no problem but it sets up a very dangerous scenario going forward. There will be companies out there queuing up to offer 35% of their tax bill rather than the full amount.

it is totally immoral if true.

As I have stated many times, the precedent is one of HMRC getting as much as they possibly can. They will continue to deal on a case by case basis. If they think they can get 100% from the next club or business to enter administration they will push for it.

What you're arguing for is for HMRC to receive nothing.

[chinapig]

18 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

As I have stated many times, the precedent is one of HMRC getting as much as they possibly can. They will continue to deal on a case by case basis. If they think they can get 100% from the next club or business to enter administration they will push for it.

What you're arguing for is for HMRC to receive nothing.

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.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, chinapig said:

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.

This ruling is part of the new uefa FFP rules.

[chinapig]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

This ruling is part of the new uefa FFP rules.

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

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, chinapig said:

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

Sorry, t’other way around….must keep “taxes” up to date.

[chinapig]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Sorry, t’other way around….must keep “taxes” up to date.

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.

[ScottishRed]

30 minutes ago, chinapig said:

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.

Which summarises  my point perfectly.

As a tax payer I would prefer to see Derby County wound up even if that means HMRC get nothing, it will prove that HMRC are serious about the collection of taxes from financially cheating football clubs.

In addition, I believe it would deter any other questionable owners following the same path.

[chinapig]

3 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

Which summarises  my point perfectly.

As a tax payer I would prefer to see Derby County wound up even if that means HMRC get nothing, it will prove that HMRC are serious about the collection of taxes from financially cheating football clubs.

In addition, I believe it would deter any other questionable owners following the same path.

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.

[ScottishRed]

2 minutes ago, chinapig said:

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.

Which again, is totally wrong. As I have mentioned previously on this thread, if I lived in Derby that would make me more than a little angry.

I am certain that the council could find better ways to spend £20m but probably don’t want to be the ones that ruin the ‘ We got away with it ‘ party.

[East Londoner]

14 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

Which summarises  my point perfectly.

As a tax payer I would prefer to see Derby County wound up even if that means HMRC get nothing, it will prove that HMRC are serious about the collection of taxes from financially cheating football clubs.

In addition, I believe it would deter any other questionable owners following the same path.

Does the liquidation of Rangers in 2012 act as a precedence at all?

From memory it was the HMRC’s rejection of the CVA that forced Rangers into liquidation and Rangers are arguably a much bigger club than Derby County 

[ScottishRed]

1 minute ago, East Londoner said:

Does the liquidation of Rangers in 2012 act as a precedence at all?

From memory it was the HMRC’s rejection of the CVA that forced Rangers into liquidation and Rangers are arguably a much bigger club than Derby County 

It should do but apparently not.

Let me be clear I despise both of the bigot brothers equally, had it been up to me Rangers 2012 would have had to start in the West of Scotland league and not in Div 2.

Bizarrley, they  almost got to retain their SPL status as a majority of the SPL clubs were in favor - ££.

That only stopped when the supporters of the SPL clubs of the day made it clear to their boards that they would not be attending any games against Rangers 2012, in fact, they would not be attending ANY games full stop.

Opinions soon changed.

[CyderInACan]

12 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

They should be thrust out of the EFL and start from the bottom

Absolutely right. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, billywedlock said:

Not the fault of the fans , but you are going to be tarred with this for a very very long time thanks to Morris .  

You're being too kind with this- well you are technically not wrong but their fans lapped up the Mel Derby way.

In all honesty at this level, when it comes to a regular Championship club- never have I seen a set of fans with such a combination of a warped sense of entitlement, wilful ignorance about the rules, crying about how unfair it all is...very objectionable club with an  equally odious sizeable minority of fans. Thought it was hilarious when the EFL were on strings, some of the posts when the stadium sale was announced look funny now.

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/31968-1718-financial-results/

Page 26 has some quite amusing responses, saying how much Mel cares- how they are better off with that arrangement than the Sheffield Wednesday or Aston Villa stadium sales- as he cares so much about Derby money.

2 hours ago, ScottishRed said:

Which summarises  my point perfectly.

As a tax payer I would prefer to see Derby County wound up even if that means HMRC get nothing, it will prove that HMRC are serious about the collection of taxes from financially cheating football clubs.

In addition, I believe it would deter any other questionable owners following the same path.

Totally agree.

In addition to this, I would be perfectly comfortable if it came down to it and the EFL Insolvency Policy tipped Derby over the edge- rules based organisations require rigid and to the letter enforcement for all.

Edited May 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, billywedlock said:

It has to go further than deductions .

Swindon , or Swindle as we still call them , we’re initially relegated 2 leagues for an offence that looks laughable in the Derby context .

HMRC have been pathetic and so have the EFL. Hilarious Derby fans think EFL have it for them . You should not be able to start a season if you are behind with tax payments . The lack of filing accounts , one league relegation . The punishments are pathetic and encouraged risk taking . 
 

That Derby are in L1 whilst defaulting on 30 million of public money is a disgrace . They should be thrust out of the EFL and start from the bottom.  The punishment is pathetic . They will be talking about promotion and an instant return in a few weeks . Sorry but it is all too easy . Lose a pile of debt , defraud the tax payer and probably use tax payers money to buy the ground . Slap on hand , start from one league lower . It’s the biggest bargain in football history . 
 

Dodgy Derby County , with the O removed . 
 

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.

Edited May 17, 2022 by chinapig

[Mr Popodopolous]

I might add as well, find the occasional bit of agreement with a few on DCFCFans. Having read their critique of my earlier post about embargo etc.

Yes the embargo remaining in place post June would leave Derby with 5 players but then again by the letter of the EFL Regulations non submitted accounts would mean that the Embargo should remain. Perhaps allow them to take the squad up to 23 on wages not exceeding £6k per week for a player, no fees, no loan fees, no or limited signing on fees and heavily restricted agents fees. Then again how many throughout the club with a Professional Standing would remain? Anyone who has made one appearance in League 1 or above e.g- I don't know what's best tbh.

Being in administration relieves an entity of the obligation to submit accounts, however to publish them on the website eg certainly isn't a big ask.

They were not the accounts that the EFL received but Indicative figures- the EFL confirmed this in a Q&A a few months back...Indicative figures should be accurate but by the letter what obligation is there to lift it prior to each obligation being fulfilled?

As for the letter of the EFL Regulations, the EFL Insolvency Policy beyond the basic -12 is not actually in the public domain so to an extent, they can decide what they like? Obviously the -15 points is subject to rates but the other stuff, there seems to be nothing set in stone either way- £1 reduced expenditure for each £1 of debt relief seems a fair swap to me, 2 years if the 25% or 3 if 35% in 3.

I also on a separate note hope that nice Mr. Couhig hasn't gone away with his claim- and that he is encouraged to pursue it for the good of the game.

Edited May 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/39698-from-being-hard-done-by-to-bring-despised/

I wonder when they were deemed hard done by? Surely not by a range of Championship fans. Do wish I'd gone to Pride Park as I was planning in April.

EFL must not backslide- a question to them in the last 6 months yielded the following answer.

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/efl-response-to-ramstrust/

By rights, by the letter of their regulations they could a) Keep the Embargo in play until such time as all items on the Embargo Reporting Service are resolved and b) The two year monitored business plan with embargo of sorts upholds the integrity of the game so is a must.

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/dcfc-supporters-groups-meet-efl/

OTOH provided that the Insolvency Policy is applied both correctly and fairly moving forward- I can live with it.

Edited May 17, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

So here are Quantuma's statement and the one from the EFL:

[chinapig]

7 minutes ago, Hxj said:

So here are Quantuma's statement and the one from the EFL:

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?

[Hxj]

22 minutes ago, chinapig said:

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?

I suspect so, all the EFL are interested in is that DCFC have security of tenure and it is clear that Kirchner is not taking ownership of the stadium, so from the EFL's perspective a lease is fine.  It is also clear that Kirchner wants Morris out, so I suspect that Kirchner will only complete if the stadium is sold by Morris, so he has put that condition in his contract, hence the Quantuma comment.

22 minutes ago, chinapig said:

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?

Provided all football creditors are paid, which they probably now have or will be from central distributions, the EFL don't care what the outcome regarding creditors is.  They will apply the rules to the outcome.  The membership agreement will outline what needs to happen to avoid any futher points deduction.

There is also a subtle difference on timing.  Quantuma say 'targeted for on or before 31 May', the EFL state 'Final approval is subject to [completion of the Purchase Agreement and] a lease ... by 31 May.'

Edited May 17, 2022 by Hxj

[ExiledAjax]

14 minutes ago, Hxj said:

There is also a subtle difference on timing.  Quantuma say 'targeted for on or before 31 May', the EFL state 'Final approval is subject to [completion of the Purchase Agreement and] a lease ... by 31 May.'

I'd expect its the Quantuma version. That would be the way the lawyers would write it. Avoids the ambiguity of whether "by" includes "on".

[chinapig]

18 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I suspect so, all the EFL are interested in is that DCFC have security of tenure and it is clear that Kirchner is not taking ownership of the stadium, so from the EFL's perspective a lease is fine.  It is also clear that Kirchner wants Morris out, so I suspect that Kirchner will only complete if the stadium is sold by Morris, so he has put that condition in his contract, hence the Quantuma comment.

Provided all football creditors are paid, which they probably now have or will be from central distributions, the EFL don't care what the outcome regarding creditors is.  They will apply the rules to the outcome.  The membership agreement will outline what needs to happen to avoid any futher points deduction.

There is also a subtle difference on timing.  Quantuma say 'targeted for on or before 31 May', the EFL state 'Final approval is subject to [completion of the Purchase Agreement and] a lease ... by 31 May.'

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.

[Hxj]

42 minutes ago, chinapig said:

or they are sailing close to the wind still

This is my understanding.