Davefevs Posted April 4, 2022 Report Share Posted April 4, 2022 No idea whether true or not: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 16 minutes ago, Davefevs said: No idea whether true or not: Good luck to them if true. Feels a bit last resort to go back to a guy you publicly ditched months ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Londoner Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 BBC running with it this morning too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Geoff Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 Seems like now or never for DC. Can't see that Kirchner will have bid the same as before Christmas so would assume a lower bid than before. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishRed Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 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. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 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". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: I suspect you could negotiate that payment plans can constitute payment "in full". Guess a failed payment would lead to grim circumstances 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 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". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 IF this is true, that's misconduct! Potentially? Quote "Told deal completed last night but EFL still to be informed". https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appendix-3-owners-and-directors-test/ One for you perhaps @Hxj could this not constitute misconduct? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said: IF this is true, that's misconduct! Potentially? https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appendix-3-owners-and-directors-test/ 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 (edited) Is this fit and proper :laugh:. Someone dug this out from his old account. Think fit and proper more about the cash side? Wonder if the EFL have seen his historic tweets yet, they like to emphasise equality and inclusivity. Edited April 5, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 (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? 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 April 5, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 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? 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/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 I’ll believe it when the money changes hands. Preferred bidder status is way off a deal Preston already found that out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exAtyeoMax Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 Why would Derby be a better proposition than PNE for Kirchner? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 46 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said: Why would Derby be a better proposition than PNE for Kirchner? Bit more desperate? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 26 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: Bit more desperate? Maybe, but you have stacks of LT debt. This may also be a move to bring PNE back to the table. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Londoner Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 Watch them now try and take a 15 point penalty this season instead of next 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 8 minutes ago, East Londoner said: Watch them now try and take a 15 point penalty this season instead of next Reading trying to make sure that option becomes a non-starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin101 Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 Readings win tonight just about relegates Derby IMO. Nine points adrift with 18 to play for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 5, 2022 Report Share Posted April 5, 2022 (edited) I like the way he's gone about explaining his take- better by far than graphs etc! He basically thinks Ashley will end up buying stadium and club. Edited April 5, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.