Derby County

[The Constant Rabbit]

For the sake of Bury and the other clubs who were expelled - enough.

Derby have had so much leeway it's ridiculous.

I couldn't care less if CK was a patsy for MA - enough.

 

Liquidate Derby and treat them the same as they have Bury.

 

This is a farce.

[chinapig]

2 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

When I said hot I didn't expect this hot!

With Nixon he normally posts things which allows him to come back with "aye" no matter the outcome. Derby included in the past.

What's inescapable this time round is he's very close to Stretford who happens to be Rooney's agent and linked to Gary Cook and the CK bid. It wouldn't surprise me to see him as a board member should CK get a takeover over the line. When Nixon tweets about Derby at the minute he's being briefed by Stretford. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. What's true/what CK wants us to believe can be two different things.

 

Had to remove myself from the whole situation today. It's all become too much. From the same two sources who indicated Clowes was buying the ground - looks like this deal is in place if needed - they're saying the money laundering checks have finished and the money cleared. Frankly I just want it over. If, and its a huge monumemtal if, the money has cleared and a takeover happens, great, but by god I'll be petrified any other time money needs to leave the club. I'm just drained and sick at the moment.

Thanks, very informed, informative and intelligently put as usual.

I admit I am deeply irritated (and sometimes amused) by many on the Derby forum as a result of the regular special pleading, conspiracy thinking and so on. More so since most of them don't seem to have ever read the EFL regulations or even understand what the EFL actually is.

We are fortunate on here to have people who are steeped in the regs and/or have considerable financial expertise.

I don't see that on the Derby forum but you are welcome here because you are clearly both knowledgeable and rational. We don't always have to agree to recognise that.

I understand how you are feeling so I hope for your sake at least that it is all sorted to your satisfaction soon. Take care.

[downendcity]

6 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

When I said hot I didn't expect this hot!

 

No-one expects the OTIB inquisition.

Our weapon is fear and surprise.

Our 2 weapons are fear, surprise and Mr Popodopolous 

Among our many weapons are fear, surprise, Mr Popodopolous, Davefevs ............

[Port Said Red]

36 minutes ago, downendcity said:

No-one expects the OTIB inquisition.

Our weapon is fear and surprise.

Our 2 weapons are fear, surprise and Mr Popodopolous 

Among our many weapons are fear, surprise, Mr Popodopolous, Davefevs ............

Do you want to come in again?

[E.G.Red]

I wonder what this means in respect of Aden Flints move and indeed Wayne Rooney.

Edited June 9, 2022 by E.G.Red

[Monkeh]

1 hour ago, E.G.Red said:

I wonder what this means in respect of Aden Flints move and indeed Wayne Rooney.

No one is moving to Derby until its sorted,

They basically have a month and a bit to save the club,

They can start the season and postpone fixtures but that will only go on for so long before they are expelled (I think that happened to Bury and hereford)

[chinapig]

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

No-one expects the OTIB inquisition.

Our weapon is fear and surprise.

Our 2 weapons are fear, surprise and Mr Popodopolous 

Among our many weapons are fear, surprise, Mr Popodopolous, Davefevs ............

... and a fanatical devotion to amortisation.

[BTRFTG]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

This is true although I wonder if they would have to submit once done...

Save it's never done....

The Administrators will submit initial public accounts to CH either for the wound up entity or for the restructured entity. Thereafter it'll revert to the companies to file annual returns (what might possibly go wrong there with EFL's powerful sanctions particularly if, as previous, they choose not to use them for favoured members?)

That's wholly different from the EFL who require all annual accounts for FFP/ P&S assessment. Supposedly they've had these (at the umpteenth request and having missed multiple deadlines,) but unlike all other clubs who may independently verify their peers accounts, fellow members have only the EFL board's take on how compliant they thought their returns were or whether Derby's accounts were non-impaired.

Now suppose Derby come out of administration, repay all secured & football related debt, have paid or have plans to pay non-secured creditors, there's still the thorny matter of HMRC. In theory the owed £36m must be paid in full though there's a suggestion, due to political pressure, HMRC might be persuaded to settle for less. For every £ not repaid HMRC every other member club may rightfully claim that's an unfair advantage Derby have extracted from a supposed level playing field. Derby's peers will demonstrate they've had to pay tax owing, in many cases borrowing monies at commercial rates of interest so to do. Should the EFL not allow them all FFP/PS leeway in an equivalent amount to balance things up, and if doing so drive the final death nail into that preposterous control?

And say a restructured Derby decides to take the 3 year plan for repayment of unsecured debt, will the EFL ensure through the distribution of their funds that such payments are met, or will they trust Derby to ensure payments are made, for which the have awful recent track record?

Letting Derby off the hook time and again serves only to create future problems. EFL need to stand up and demonstrate why it is they exist. For sure they want to protect member clubs, but not at all cost. Derby have drunk the last chance saloon dry. Time to throw them out the door.

 

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Now suppose Derby come out of administration, repay all secured & football related debt, have paid or have plans to pay non-secured creditors, there's still the thorny matter of HMRC. In theory the owed £36m must be paid in full though there's a suggestion, due to political pressure, HMRC might be persuaded to settle for less. For every £ not repaid HMRC every other member club may rightfully claim that's an unfair advantage Derby have extracted from a supposed level playing field. Derby's peers will demonstrate they've had to pay tax owing, in many cases borrowing monies at commercial rates of interest so to do. Should the EFL not allow them all FFP/PS leeway in an equivalent amount to balance things up, and if doing so drive the final death nail into that preposterous control?

I'm going to repeat myself (again!) and point out that HMRC insist they never do sweetheart deals and always insist on full payment of the amount due.

They are going to have questions to answer if they give Derby special treatment, though they will be able to cite confidentiality. But I'm sure there will be club owners demanding answers nevertheless.

[BTRFTG]

12 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm going to repeat myself (again!) and point out that HMRC insist they never do sweetheart deals and always insist on full payment of the amount due.

They are going to have questions to answer if they give Derby special treatment, though they will be able to cite confidentiality. But I'm sure there will be club owners demanding answers nevertheless.

They might wish for confidentiality but how might that be obscured in the administrators or restricted company accounts?

[BTRFTG]

19 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm going to repeat myself (again!) and point out that HMRC insist they never do sweetheart deals and always insist on full payment of the amount due.

They are going to have questions to answer if they give Derby special treatment, though they will be able to cite confidentiality. But I'm sure there will be club owners demanding answers nevertheless.

It's also true the majority of cases where HMRC do enter into sweetheart arrangements involve matters where, owing to complexities (often international tax considerations,) there's either dispute as to the amount of tax due or difficulty in HMRC being able to evidence that they believe they might be owed.  That doesn't apply at Derby. Nearly all debt owed HMRC is either Income Tax deducted via PAYE, NI contributions & VAT. Demonstrable amounts Derby collected but failed to pass on.

[chinapig]

6 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

It's also true the majority of cases where HMRC do enter into sweetheart arrangements involve matters where, owing to complexities (often international tax considerations,) there's either dispute as to the amount of tax due or difficulty in HMRC being able to evidence that they believe they might be owed.  That doesn't apply at Derby. Nearly all debt owed HMRC is either Income Tax deducted via PAYE, NI contributions & VAT. Demonstrable amounts Derby collected but failed to pass on.

Yes, they do give themselves a get out clause by saying they never accept an amount less than they expect a court would order. Not applicable here though as you say.

Perhaps their PR needs to stop using absolutes like never and always as it makes them look less than honest.

[chinapig]

I see Nixon is now saying Kirchner is on his third attempt to transfer the money as there were queries arising from money laundering checks.

This should be a big concern but he has compounded it apparently by saying Kirchner originally tried to get around the checks.

Probably a bad choice of words but if you are going to be somebody's mouthpiece it's probably not a good idea to imply he tried to circumvent the law.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Save it's never done....

The Administrators will submit initial public accounts to CH either for the wound up entity or for the restructured entity. Thereafter it'll revert to the companies to file annual returns (what might possibly go wrong there with EFL's powerful sanctions particularly if, as previous, they choose not to use them for favoured members?)

That's wholly different from the EFL who require all annual accounts for FFP/ P&S assessment. Supposedly they've had these (at the umpteenth request and having missed multiple deadlines,) but unlike all other clubs who may independently verify their peers accounts, fellow members have only the EFL board's take on how compliant they thought their returns were or whether Derby's accounts were non-impaired.

Now suppose Derby come out of administration, repay all secured & football related debt, have paid or have plans to pay non-secured creditors, there's still the thorny matter of HMRC. In theory the owed £36m must be paid in full though there's a suggestion, due to political pressure, HMRC might be persuaded to settle for less. For every £ not repaid HMRC every other member club may rightfully claim that's an unfair advantage Derby have extracted from a supposed level playing field. Derby's peers will demonstrate they've had to pay tax owing, in many cases borrowing monies at commercial rates of interest so to do. Should the EFL not allow them all FFP/PS leeway in an equivalent amount to balance things up, and if doing so drive the final death nail into that preposterous control?

And say a restructured Derby decides to take the 3 year plan for repayment of unsecured debt, will the EFL ensure through the distribution of their funds that such payments are met, or will they trust Derby to ensure payments are made, for which the have awful recent track record?

Letting Derby off the hook time and again serves only to create future problems. EFL need to stand up and demonstrate why it is they exist. For sure they want to protect member clubs, but not at all cost. Derby have drunk the last chance saloon dry. Time to throw them out the door.

 

You summarise well that Derby have already had an unfair advantage, now penalised (9 pts FFP and 12 pts Admin), but can’t be allowed more unfair advantage (over 71 other members) coming out of admin!

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I see Nixon is now saying Kirchner is on his third attempt to transfer the money as there were queries arising from money laundering checks.

This should be a big concern but he has compounded it apparently by saying Kirchner originally tried to get around the checks.

Probably a bad choice of words but if you are going to be somebody's mouthpiece it's probably not a good idea to imply he tried to circumvent the law.

I mean...everyone tries to 'get around' AML checks. They are annoying, and can at times be tricky to satisfy. Everyone tries to provide the absolute bare minimum of information necessary to sate the enforcers. It's not about 'avoiding' the checks, it's about doing the bare minimum. Same as with taxes - no one pays more than they reasonably need to, but likewise you make sure you don't break the law. You're right, Nixon has chosen his words carelessly.

That said, I've never seen a client or prospective purchaser 'fail' the checks three times. Generally people either comply on the first attempt or they disappear.

I suspect this is the receiving bank querying items, and CK/CK's sending bank cannot answer them. Likely source of wealth questions aren't being answered. Basically "how come you are so rich?" has to be answered with "by perfectly legal and explainable means which are X, Y, and Z". If it cannot be answered like that...well then there's a suspicion that you've got dodgy funds and banks, who have incredibly rigid matrixes and rules on this, won't take your money into their system.

[BTRFTG]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I mean...everyone tries to 'get around' AML checks. They are annoying, and can at times be tricky to satisfy. Everyone tries to provide the absolute bare minimum of information necessary to sate the enforcers. It's not about 'avoiding' the checks, it's about doing the bare minimum. Same as with taxes - no one pays more than they reasonably need to, but likewise you make sure you don't break the law. You're right, Nixon has chosen his words carelessly.

That said, I've never seen a client or prospective purchaser 'fail' the checks three times. Generally people either comply on the first attempt or they disappear.

I suspect this is the receiving bank querying items, and CK/CK's sending bank cannot answer them. Likely source of wealth questions aren't being answered. Basically "how come you are so rich?" has to be answered with "by perfectly legal and explainable means which are X, Y, and Z". If it cannot be answered like that...well then there's a suspicion that you've got dodgy funds and banks, who have incredibly rigid matrixes and rules on this, won't take your money into their system.

Any idea where the money is coming from as I thought CK was only the mouthpiece?

Never sure how much to trust 'wealth' reports on the internet but in CK's case his personal wealth is reported as $4-5m. Decent enough but nothing special.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Save it's never done....

The Administrators will submit initial public accounts to CH either for the wound up entity or for the restructured entity. Thereafter it'll revert to the companies to file annual returns (what might possibly go wrong there with EFL's powerful sanctions particularly if, as previous, they choose not to use them for favoured members?)

That's wholly different from the EFL who require all annual accounts for FFP/ P&S assessment. Supposedly they've had these (at the umpteenth request and having missed multiple deadlines,) but unlike all other clubs who may independently verify their peers accounts, fellow members have only the EFL board's take on how compliant they thought their returns were or whether Derby's accounts were non-impaired.

Now suppose Derby come out of administration, repay all secured & football related debt, have paid or have plans to pay non-secured creditors, there's still the thorny matter of HMRC. In theory the owed £36m must be paid in full though there's a suggestion, due to political pressure, HMRC might be persuaded to settle for less. For every £ not repaid HMRC every other member club may rightfully claim that's an unfair advantage Derby have extracted from a supposed level playing field. Derby's peers will demonstrate they've had to pay tax owing, in many cases borrowing monies at commercial rates of interest so to do. Should the EFL not allow them all FFP/PS leeway in an equivalent amount to balance things up, and if doing so drive the final death nail into that preposterous control?

And say a restructured Derby decides to take the 3 year plan for repayment of unsecured debt, will the EFL ensure through the distribution of their funds that such payments are met, or will they trust Derby to ensure payments are made, for which the have awful recent track record?

Letting Derby off the hook time and again serves only to create future problems. EFL need to stand up and demonstrate why it is they exist. For sure they want to protect member clubs, but not at all cost. Derby have drunk the last chance saloon dry. Time to throw them out the door.

 

Little bits of this I don't fully get although I broadly agree with the post.

"Save it's never done"- strikes me as an interesting test case because an EFL sanction- for which they are currently under embargo, there are 5 reasons in total is accounts not being submitted to CH- surely the EFL can insist upon no Embargo being lifted until such time as it has been done- for club and consolidator alike. One of them is accounts relating to P&S, one of them is accounts to the EFL and one of them is accounts to CH- the third one, "No accounts in the public domain- and that can include the website= no substantial lifting of the embargo".

Or more simply, it is one of the conditions of takeover being fully ratified at the EFL level that all requirements on the Embargo service have to be complied with in full. No full compliance=not in accordance with their regulations.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[BTRFTG]

10 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Little bits of this I don't fully get although I broadly agree with the post.

"Save it's never done"- strikes me as an interesting test case because an EFL sanction- for which they are currently under embargo, there are 5 reasons in total is accounts not being submitted to CH- surely the EFL can insist upon no Embargo being lifted until such time as it has been done- for club and consolidator alike. One of them is accounts relating to P&S, one of them is accounts to the EFL and one of them is accounts to CH- the third one, "No accounts in the public domain- and that can include the website= no substantial lifting of the embargo".

EFL (supposedly) have the FFP/P&S accounts for each season that they've verified and (one assumes) are satisfied with. Problem being few others have access. CH accounts are a red herring, no longer need to be filed but will be going forward once out of administration.

My point about it never being done is simply that should the world and his wife bend over excusing Derby of liabilities others are obliged to meet, well, where does that stop? Any club could enter a CVA with unsecured creditors so Derby isn't an exception provided they keep their end of the bargain, but other clubs are required to pay taxes in full so why should Derby be an exception? For as long as they retain an advantage (if granted,) in that respect they should be penalised season after season.

Edited June 9, 2022 by BTRFTG

[BTRFTG]

37 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I mean...everyone tries to 'get around' AML checks. They are annoying, and can at times be tricky to satisfy.

Appreciate what you say but honest folks understand why AML compliance exists and why the additional diligence and paperwork it generates is necessary.

I'm pretty sure those who have been killed, robbed, defrauded, enslaved or had their lives ruined by drugs or sexual exploitation won't find them annoying. Nor the young, old, sick, vulnerable or needy from whom many such monies have been deprived.

I once had access to a secure office which upon one large wall displayed mug shots of 'persons of interest'. They were in groups which one might easily have concluded were arranged by ethnicity, not the Producers, Transporters, Recruiters, Importers, Smugglers, Henchmen, Accountants & Bankers they were. My point? At the end of the wall there was also a selection of images of their victims. Staff new to their roles were directed to look at those images first, not avert their eyes to the horror. A stark and constant reminder of why such offices exist.

As you say it shouldn't be difficult for CK to comply and if it is, well, that does tell its own story.......

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by BTRFTG

[Mr Popodopolous]

41 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

EFL (supposedly) have the FFP/P&S accounts for each season that they've verified and (one assumes) are satisfied with. Problem being few others have access. CH accounts are a red herring, no longer need to be filed but will be going forward once out of administration.

My point about it never being done is simply that should the world and his wife bend over excusing Derby of liabilities others are obliged to meet, well, where does that stop? Any club could enter a CVA with unsecured creditors so Derby isn't an exception provided they keep their end of the bargain, but other clubs are required to pay taxes in full so why should Derby be an exception? For as long as they retain an advantage (if granted,) in that respect they should be penalised season after season.

It's a red herring as to whether they actually do in Derby's case. The closest we have come is 'indicative figures' and the reasons drop off the EFL Embargo list once rectified.

In particular, note Regulations 16.2, 16.3 and the one pertaining to Profit and Sustainability regs.

Post a takeover why should the Football League lift all if any of Regulations 16.2, 16.3 or Profit and Sustainability not complied with. Companies House or not, it still appears to be a Football League requirement...and the Agreed Decision offered a route by which this could be sorted too what with the alternative of publishing on the website or similar.

I totally agree on the 2nd bit...and the EFL Insolvency policy helps to an extent, what with spending limits for 2 maybe 3 years and a -15 if a minimum dividend to the correct categories not met, but whether it's enough is difficult to say.

My argument is basically that a takeover shouldn't relieve them of the obligation- or if if does then they remain under embargo until such time as it is resolved to the satisfaction of the Football League and no sooner.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

10 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

As you say it shouldn't be difficult for CK to comply

My experience is that AML/Client ID is never a problem.

1. The UK lawyers would have to have under taken the checks into ID and source of funds whilst taking on a client, ie not now.

2. Any banks involved in a large commercial transaction would be involved at the beginning, and again carry out their checks before opening any UK accounts for receipt of funds, ie not now.

3. Any solicitor's client account opened would be subject to the same checks when being opened, ie not now.

I can understand concerns about $20 million being wired from an obscure offshore bank, but that points more to the stupidity of those undertaking the transfer, which in itself would concern me,

[REDOXO]

57 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I mean...everyone tries to 'get around' AML checks. They are annoying, and can at times be tricky to satisfy. Everyone tries to provide the absolute bare minimum of information necessary to sate the enforcers. It's not about 'avoiding' the checks, it's about doing the bare minimum. Same as with taxes - no one pays more than they reasonably need to, but likewise you make sure you don't break the law. You're right, Nixon has chosen his words carelessly.

That said, I've never seen a client or prospective purchaser 'fail' the checks three times. Generally people either comply on the first attempt or they disappear.

I suspect this is the receiving bank querying items, and CK/CK's sending bank cannot answer them. Likely source of wealth questions aren't being answered. Basically "how come you are so rich?" has to be answered with "by perfectly legal and explainable means which are X, Y, and Z". If it cannot be answered like that...well then there's a suspicion that you've got dodgy funds and banks, who have incredibly rigid matrixes and rules on this, won't take your money into their system.

My very good friend was involved in the biggest sports franchise purchase in the world at the time. 
 

We had many conversations about FBI involvement in checks on funds on a daily basis and the hoops the Federal Government make you jump through. 
 

This purchase is a drop in the bucket compared to that one, however Kirschner and his company/ies have opened themselves up to a lot of questions in the domestic USA on that basis, coupled with moving large sums abroad. The Pound Sterling is cheap against USD so I suspect purchasing in the UK has attraction beyond football, but I would suggest there are a whole lot more hoops to jump through that meet the eye to most!
 

Nevertheless everyone working for Kirchner must know this stuff in advance, so I would wonder how much of a microscope Kirchner is under in both the US and the UK, never mind the banks!

[East Londoner]

Could the money laundering checks issue be due to having to convert bitcoin into cash?

[REDOXO]

13 minutes ago, East Londoner said:

Could the money laundering checks issue be due to having to convert bitcoin into cash?

If that is what is happening It will be a factor, with authorities and banks. 

[BTRFTG]

I have it on good authority CK is using as collateral Michael Owen NFTs and as we know, they can't lose value ......

[REDOXO]

Kirschnets exclusivity period has just been ended according to reports!

[Hxj]

I wonder if CK was asked to verify the Crypto profits from his tax return ....

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

Kirschnets exclusivity period has just been ended according to reports!

Sky are saying so but Nixon is saying no.

I suspect Sky are reporting rumour as fact but then again Nixon is clearly now Kirchner's mouthpiece so he would say that wouldn't he?

Quantuma are saying nothing of course. Though their statements are usually rambling near gibberish written in very bad English anyway.

Edit: Nixon now saying Quantuma are his source.

Edited June 9, 2022 by chinapig

[BTRFTG]

I just looked at CK's LinkedIn profile and now know less about him than I did prior to visiting.

At least you knew what you were letting yourself in for in the golden days of dubious income sources, you'll recall, 'Supplier of meats to Labour controlled authorities throughout the North West - service with a handshake....' Through condemned offal were such famous empires built.

[Monkeh]

26 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Sky are saying so but Nixon is saying no.

I suspect Sky are reporting rumour as fact but then again Nixon is clearly now Kirchner's mouthpiece so he would say that wouldn't he?

Quantuma are saying nothing of course. Though their statements are usually rambling near gibberish written in very bad English anyway.

Edit: Nixon now saying Quantuma are his source.

Then he's being lied too

[CyderInACan]

What a tangled web they weave. It’s a fascinating old story mind. 

[Rich]

Excuse me if this has been covered before but I haven't seen it. There's lot's of talk about how much is owed to HMRC, with possible agreements to pay less over a period of time. How do we know the exact figure? HMRC won't have released it, Quantuma might have but, is it the correct figure? £36m sounds an awful lot in terms of PAYE, NI and VAT. Are players paid on a PAYE basis, or self employed? 

I only ask as whenever I've dealt with the collector of taxes, there is no leeway in the total, just an agreed payment plan. But, if the figures demanded are wrong from the outset, which is often the case, demands are issued for the incorrect figure. Automated late payment fines are then issued, along interest charged and totaled, yet the original demand was incorrect. I've made payments directly to the HMPO which is supposedly attributed instantly, only for it to be not registered until after the due date. I've then received fines for late payment and when disputing it, additional charges. So, how can we be sure this is not a disputed figure?

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, CyderInACan said:

What a tangled web they weave. It’s a fascinating old story mind. 

And one where I don't think any single person will every really know the whole truth of the matter.

[REDOXO]

6 minutes ago, Rich said:

Excuse me if this has been covered before but I haven't seen it. There's lot's of talk about how much is owed to HMRC, with possible agreements to pay less over a period of time. How do we know the exact figure? HMRC won't have released it, Quantuma might have but, is it the correct figure? £36m sounds an awful lot in terms of PAYE, NI and VAT. Are players paid on a PAYE basis, or self employed? 

I only ask as whenever I've dealt with the collector of taxes, there is no leeway in the total, just an agreed payment plan. But, if the figures demanded are wrong from the outset, which is often the case, demands are issued for the incorrect figure. Automated late payment fines are then issued, along interest charged and totaled, yet the original demand was incorrect. I've made payments directly to the HMPO which is supposedly attributed instantly, only for it to be not registered until after the due date. I've then received fines for late payment and when disputing it, additional charges. So, how can we be sure this is not a disputed figure?

I think a large part of the issue is, in summary, that HMRC started the winding up process well before Covid. Gvnmnt policy was not to wind organizations up through Covid and as such Derby County were given a green light to continue not to pay income tax on wages etc over an extended period. 

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Rich said:

Excuse me if this has been covered before but I haven't seen it. There's lot's of talk about how much is owed to HMRC, with possible agreements to pay less over a period of time. How do we know the exact figure? HMRC won't have released it, Quantuma might have but, is it the correct figure? £36m sounds an awful lot in terms of PAYE, NI and VAT. Are players paid on a PAYE basis, or self employed? 

I only ask as whenever I've dealt with the collector of taxes, there is no leeway in the total, just an agreed payment plan. But, if the figures demanded are wrong from the outset, which is often the case, demands are issued for the incorrect figure. Automated late payment fines are then issued, along interest charged and totaled, yet the original demand was incorrect. I've made payments directly to the HMPO which is supposedly attributed instantly, only for it to be not registered until after the due date. I've then received fines for late payment and when disputing it, additional charges. So, how can we be sure this is not a disputed figure?

Yes, £36m is correct, and as you say a combo of unpaid VAT, NI and PAYE.  It’s not an awful lot if (as it seems) it’s been built up over a period of time!

Players are paid PAYE.  They’ve been paid the net amount, but Derby didn’t pay HMRC their bit.

[Rich]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, £36m is correct, and as you say a combo of unpaid VAT, NI and PAYE.  It’s not an awful lot if (as it seems) it’s been built up over a period of time!

Players are paid PAYE.  They’ve been paid the net amount, but Derby didn’t pay HMRC their bit.

As you say, built up over a period of time but, would HMRC and the collector of taxes have allowed that to happen over a period of time, as penalties are added automatically for late payment of taxes and tax returns. That's what I mean by disputable, any interested buyer might want to dispute those figures and possibly find a scapegoat, these are the legal side of things to consider. I thought, possibly wrongly, that the directors, or their bookeeper/accountants are legally obliged personally, to run the business properly and pay taxes on time and on demand?

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, Rich said:

As you say, built up over a period of time but, would HMRC and the collector of taxes have allowed that to happen over a period of time, as penalties are added automatically for late payment of taxes and tax returns. That's what I mean by disputable, any interested buyer might want to dispute those figures and possibly find a scapegoat, these are the legal side of things to consider. I thought, possibly wrongly, that the directors, or their bookeeper/accountants are legally obliged personally, to run the business properly and pay taxes on time and on demand?

I remind it is DERBY were talking about here....

Amounts should not be in dispute as players will have documents showing earnings and sales receipts will have been recorded.

Simply a case of Morris finding HMRC a soft touch and using their latitude to fund business rather than he.

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, £36m is correct, and as you say a combo of unpaid VAT, NI and PAYE.  It’s not an awful lot if (as it seems) it’s been built up over a period of time!

Players are paid PAYE.  They’ve been paid the net amount, but Derby didn’t pay HMRC their bit.

Believe their accounts if you will but the last period, end year 2018, which if impaired would have been written to Derby's benefit showed staff costs at £40.5m and sales of £29m, so there's roughly around £24m in that year that would have gone to HMRC. Suddenly £36m doesn't seem so much.

[Davefevs]

Just now, BTRFTG said:

Believe their accounts if you will but the last period, end year 2018, which if impaired would have been written to Derby's benefit showed staff costs at £40.5m and sales of £29m, so there's roughly around £24m in that year that would have gone to HMRC. Suddenly £36m doesn't seem so much.

Yep, I wasn’t suggesting it was years and years worth, more likely since the EFL started getting tough on non-payment of players…when Mel decided to pay the “net” to the players but not pay the “tax”, to avoid more points deductions.  Disgraceful behaviour and totally calculated.

[Rich]

1 minute ago, BTRFTG said:

I remind it is DERBY were talking about here....

Amounts should not be in dispute as players will have documents showing earnings and sales receipts will have been recorded.

Simply a case of Morris finding HMRC a soft touch and using their latitude to fund business rather than he.

Perhaps I haven't explained myself very well. If the monthly returns given to HMRC  are not lodged in time and the payments made are not on time, then penalties are issued by HMRC in the form of fines, they are issued on an automated system. From personnel experience, I have made returns and payments by the due date but, that due date has fallen after 5pm on a Friday evening. It then doesn't get registered until Monday morning and an automatic penalty is issued, you then have to appeal this within a certain time limit. If DCFC were so poor in their administrative duties that they never appealed these penalties, then it could possibly be disputed by any prospective buyer that either It's not owed to HMRC or they won't pick up the tab for those failings by the previous administration. 

There's also the personal liability to HMRC if as a company, they haven't completed their returns in a legally required way. Meaning someone within the DCFC admin is liable to prosecution.

[chinapig]

27 minutes ago, Rich said:

Perhaps I haven't explained myself very well. If the monthly returns given to HMRC  are not lodged in time and the payments made are not on time, then penalties are issued by HMRC in the form of fines, they are issued on an automated system. From personnel experience, I have made returns and payments by the due date but, that due date has fallen after 5pm on a Friday evening. It then doesn't get registered until Monday morning and an automatic penalty is issued, you then have to appeal this within a certain time limit. If DCFC were so poor in their administrative duties that they never appealed these penalties, then it could possibly be disputed by any prospective buyer that either It's not owed to HMRC or they won't pick up the tab for those failings by the previous administration. 

There's also the personal liability to HMRC if as a company, they haven't completed their returns in a legally required way. Meaning someone within the DCFC admin is liable to prosecution.

The amount Derby owe will include penalties. It was originally reported as something like £27m and has risen to £36m as far as we know.

A club owner is not personally liable for a club's taxes so Morris gets a free pass. The liability remains with the club, which cannot come out of administration until a settlement is reached with HMRC. We are assuming a deal has been done with them though we don't know for sure.

As far as I'm aware not paying tax due is not a criminal offence, unless you are guilty of tax evasion, which is not the case here.

So nobody goes to jail however disreputable their behaviour.

[Lanterne Rouge]

12 minutes ago, chinapig said:

. We are assuming a deal has been done with them though we don't know for sure.

=

And, unless it has somehow been paid in full, I doubt we ever will.

[Davefevs]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61731404

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

The amount Derby owe will include penalties. It was originally reported as something like £27m and has risen to £36m as far as we know.

A club owner is not personally liable for a club's taxes so Morris gets a free pass. The liability remains with the club, which cannot come out of administration until a settlement is reached with HMRC. We are assuming a deal has been done with them though we don't know for sure.

As far as I'm aware not paying tax due is not a criminal offence, unless you are guilty of tax evasion, which is not the case here.

So nobody goes to jail however disreputable their behaviour.

Tax evasion! Clearly there is a standard that does not include evading tax!

[Lrrr]

Doesn't say which Friday tbf....

 

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Rich said:

Perhaps I haven't explained myself very well. If the monthly returns given to HMRC  are not lodged in time and the payments made are not on time, then penalties are issued by HMRC in the form of fines, they are issued on an automated system. From personnel experience, I have made returns and payments by the due date but, that due date has fallen after 5pm on a Friday evening. It then doesn't get registered until Monday morning and an automatic penalty is issued, you then have to appeal this within a certain time limit. If DCFC were so poor in their administrative duties that they never appealed these penalties, then it could possibly be disputed by any prospective buyer that either It's not owed to HMRC or they won't pick up the tab for those failings by the previous administration. 

There's also the personal liability to HMRC if as a company, they haven't completed their returns in a legally required way. Meaning someone within the DCFC admin is liable to prosecution.

I think HMRC may have dropped this now (or are more lenient,) but there was a time, should an employer have deducted but not yet paid over tax and NI, that the employee could be charged by HMRC against the net figures they had received. I worked as a student on many a site where the gaffer had 'done a bunk'. Like any creditor HMRC have to pursue non payments, it's a civil not criminal debt.

Derby clearly didn't dispute any penalties, non or deferred payment was their act of choice, robbing Peter to pay Paul in balancing the accounts to the EFL.

[chinapig]

18 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Tax evasion! Clearly there is a standard that does not include evading tax!

Tax evasion is a technical term for illegally failing to pay tax due e.g. by making false returns, faking documents etc.

Derby haven't done that they simply haven't paid up. Tax is after all for the little people.

[chinapig]

27 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Doesn't say which Friday tbf....

 

Quantuma are actually saying he has until then to provide satisfactory evidence that he is in a position to complete, not that he has to complete by then.

So how has it got this far without him having provided that evidence given the deadline was 31May?

[Midred]

These Friday deadlines! 

[Midred]

17 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Tax evasion is a technical term for illegally failing to pay tax due e.g. by making false returns, faking documents etc.

Derby haven't done that they simply haven't paid up. Tax is after all for the little people.

So is this tax avoidance? 

[chinapig]

3 minutes ago, Midred said:

So is this tax avoidance? 

No, it's just non-payment of tax due.

From Investopedia:

The term tax avoidance refers to the use of legal methods to minimize the amount of income tax owed by an individual or a business. This is generally accomplished by claiming as many deductions and credits as are allowable. It may also be achieved by prioritizing investments that have tax advantages, such as buying tax-free municipal bonds. Tax avoidance is not the same as tax evasion, which relies on illegal methods such as under reporting income and falsifying deductions.

[phantom]

[chinapig]

7 minutes ago, phantom said:

Needless to say the Derby fans on their forum are furious with this statement. Apparently it's more proof of the EFL conspiracy against them. What an irrational lot they are.

[Midred]

19 minutes ago, phantom said:

Will expulsion be incredibly imminent 

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

What an irrational lot they are.

Unbelievable bunch aren’t they?

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

Needless to say the Derby fans on their forum are furious with this statement. Apparently it's more proof of the EFL conspiracy against them. What an irrational lot they are.

 

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Unbelievable bunch aren’t they?

Not all but plenty of them absolutely- the cognitive dissonance with these matters, FFP, EFL in general of a good number is off the charts!

The conspiracy theories, the entitlement- the inability or should that be the refusal to see the wood for the trees ie worrying about new signings when the clubs very existence was and maybe still is hanging in the balance, the inability to grasp FFP and how big a mess they were in ranging from issues up to 2018 and not factoring in the fact that there may have been huge issues beyond, the insistence 2 years ago from some who seem like accountants that it was the club not the consolidator used for FFP, could go on- tell me when to stop!

Edited June 9, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Unbelievable bunch aren’t they?

They nearly all followed MM over the edge. They are nearly all looking for a scapegoat for their own idiocy. Yep unbelievable bunch. 

[Bristol Rob]

10 hours ago, phantom said:

 

[BTRFTG]

10 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

 

Or for us of a more senior generation

 

[chinapig]

From Rob Dorsett at Sky:

Been told #dcfc now talking to other parties as 5pm deadline for Kirchner looms. Ex chairman Andy Appleby and ex #wwfc owner Steve Morgan are the other options being explored, but Quantuma still refusing to engage with Mike Ashley.

[Davefevs]

Proof that the new season is upon us….Derby news now reported on the Lg1 page of bbc sport!

 

[NcnsBcfc]

11 hours ago, Midred said:

Will expulsion be incredibly imminent 

I have to say the EFL have just through the whole Derby episode come across as incredibly gutless.

Ultimately MM has the funds but not the willing to sort this situation out. Not unlike the Bury situation from a few years ago.

I get that Derby are potentially a huge club to be thrown out of the league, but the effectiveness of the EFL as a rule enforcing body for the other 71 clubs must be at stake now. They come across as not fit for purpose.

If there are a set of rules that clubs have signed up to, they need to be enforced without fear or favour. If they allow one club to dominate/bully them, then their own impartiality and effectiveness can be called into question.

It still leaves a bitter taste, listening to Richard Gould saying that the club are working with the EFL to reform PP's and FFP; whilst conforming to the current protocols. Whilst there are clubs that in the past have flouted the said rules with little or no come back.

What better way for the EFL to start to become the organisation everyone wants it to be, than to come down hard now on the whole fiasco; and grow a set of balls again.

[BTRFTG]

22 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I get that Derby are potentially a huge club to be thrown out of the league

All clubs are potentially huge and size should matter not as to how they are treated cf their peers.

EFL Board have long since been known to favour certain clubs over others, that's why they did for Macclesfield who messed them around once too often despite being no worse off than other clubs the EFL bent over backwards to save. Derby have surpassed Macclesfield in the contempt with which they treat and hold their peers, the EFL and supporters in general. EFL have made mistakes but need to stop the rot today and if that requires the politically unpopular permanent explusion of Derby County, that's a price worth paying.

[Midred]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

From Rob Dorsett at Sky:

Been told #dcfc now talking to other parties as 5pm deadline for Kirchner looms. Ex chairman Andy Appleby and ex #wwfc owner Steve Morgan are the other options being explored, but Quantuma still refusing to engage with Mike Ashley.

So another couple of months then?

[chinapig]

34 minutes ago, Midred said:

So another couple of months then?

Or liquidation. 2 more from Dorsett:

EXCL: been told Andy Appleby and Steve Morgan bids for #dcfc are “not easily resurrectable”, and real danger of liquidation if Kirchner deal falls through. Both Morgan and Appleby consortiums have lost investors since not getting preferred bidder status. Dialogue still open tho.

EXCL: Mike Ashley bid being ignored by administrators because Ashley is refusing to pay Quantuma fees, thought to be several million pounds. Still no communication on that front. If Kirchner bid fails, #dcfc seem to have limited options. Other deals may be poss, but not quickly.

[Davefevs]

Kirchner not been paying wages of one of his US teams, it seems.

[luke_bristol]

This really doesn’t look good for DCFC.

[BTRFTG]

18 minutes ago, TomF said:

So 2 hours 45 mins for Klrchner to prove he's got the dollars.

Rather, dollars to which he's both entitled and which are not Ill-gotten gains.

[BTRFTG]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Kirchner not been paying wages of one of his US teams, it seems.

Any idea who paid Derby's May wages? Rumour was Rooney but be good to know who and on what basis given Quantuma claimed to have the wherewithal to see Derby through the summer & that didn't happen.

[REDOXO]

31 minutes ago, TomF said:

So 2 hours 45 mins for Klrchner to prove he's got the dollars.

 

11 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Rather, dollars to which he's both entitled and which are not Ill-gotten gains.

Probably both!