Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County


havanatopia

Recommended Posts

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 by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

image.png.280b21f81db89756c2168231c97fd385.png

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.

image.thumb.png.d1d455114595f08a3228e6a01c373d9e.png

image.png.0765a870389160cf8a7e736e401e36d1.png

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

7 minutes ago, Hxj said:

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

Screenshot 2022-05-17 200724.png

Screenshot 2022-05-17 200752.png

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Hxj
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, chinapig said:

They'd better have a provisional deal in place already, time is running out.

It’s a matter of where obviously. Off the top of my head Burton and Chesterfield are close but I doubt they have the size required for derby to make enough money. Going to Nottingham is out of the question. Can you imagine the mayhem regardless of which ground they play. This further away is more likely but that will cost a lot in lost revenue too. Kirchner is playing his pair of threes well but I’m not confident of his ability to bluff this over the line. Re enter mike Ashley!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

It’s a matter of where obviously. Off the top of my head Burton and Chesterfield are close but I doubt they have the size required for derby to make enough money. Going to Nottingham is out of the question. Can you imagine the mayhem regardless of which ground they play. This further away is more likely but that will cost a lot in lost revenue too. Kirchner is playing his pair of threes well but I’m not confident of his ability to bluff this over the line. Re enter mike Ashley!

Stoke was mentioned previously.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, billywedlock said:

I assume they will do a stadium deal with another midlands club if stadium is not resolved. 

If they do then Mel Morris is left holding an £80m  £50m £20m  asset now worth what?

Can’t imagine a prospective owner is enamoured about buying a club without it’s own ground, but, given the financial mess DCFC are in, can also understand them baulking at being almost “held to ransom” over Pride Park by the man who created the financial mess in the first place.

Can also imagine a massive public outcry if Derby Council were to use £20m or so of taxpayers money to purchase Pride Park from the man who failed to pay over £30m of tax.

If the new owner won’t buy PP from Morris, is there anything stopping the club continuing to pay rent to Morris as have DCFC since the ffp sale?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

If the new owner won’t buy PP from Morris, is there anything stopping the club continuing to pay rent to Morris as have DCFC since the ffp sale?

Grounds to take issue there too- according to some reports, they haven't been charged rent during Covid. Which if correct breaches certain regulations- P&S regs while I cannot see it written down, it is fair to assume that the rent must be at a fair value of course, but I suppose % of fair value...but 100% of 0 is still 0! The first Independent Disciplinary mentioned it too.

Think the club in isolation was meant to be £1.1m per season but there were also rental figures due in respect of Club DCFC and Stadia DCFC- all of these entities are consolidated for P&S/FFP purposes.

FWIW, one potential figure we had for a fair rent was £4.16m per season- that is from IDC 1 and is from the very same company who valued it. 100 days use took it down to £1.1m per season but how many days would be allocated for Club DCFC and Stadia DCFC is a good question.

The other bit here- when we look at Aston Villa and their transaction (NSWE Stadium Limited), Birmingham City to date (Birmingham City Stadium Limited), Reading- at least in year 1 when it was Renhe Sports Management Limited- now it's a foreign company but so long as the rent is expensed against costs and FFP and Sheffield Wednesday (Sheffield 3 Limited) we will see a rent receivable.

Gellaw Newco 202 and by extension Gellaw Newco 204- the stadium company and its parent- show nothing at all in respect of rent receivable.

Club and Club DCFC, Stadia DCFC accounts are also not in the public domain as they should also show something.

On the one hand I think Derby should be given a bit of time to recover and breathe...on the other hand the conditions post exiting administration, part of me thinks they should be applied as such in order that no other club considers trying this level of defiance and ducking and diving and so forth that we have seen in the last few years. I'm pretty conflicted. The deterrence must be big.

That said the Football League have to date ie from last May upheld their rules excellently, albeit quite a bit too late.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

 

I wonder about Coventry, nice little earner for the stadium owners but I think they have rugby there too don`t they whereas Stoke & Leicester don`t.

Derby could not share Coventry because of Wasps in the Premiership rugby. Prem rules  clearly state that Wasps can only share with one other club which is now Coventry City.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go away for a week and things move on. Obviously pleased to see the CK isn't just a tyre kicker and genuinely confident we will come out of this the other side.

A bit more on ground share - explored but isn't a viable option. If stadium is purchased to MM's satisfaction he'll write off the other outstanding loans (£125m-ish) in the club. If not, then as the biggest creditor he can destroy any route to exit. It does appear Pride Park or nothing

Saying that what I am understanding is there will be a purchase of the ground and CK will lease it ahead of the 31st.

What happens after that re business plans, level of repayments etc is for another day. Totally get the hypotheticals and what if this, what if that; but until the details emerge I'm really of the mindset it's not worth the time and effort and working myself/ yourselves up (as one or two seem to be!) as too much of the exact details remains unknown. Plenty of time after the 31st - if not sooner - to go over that and praise/hammer the EFL as necessary for being strong enough/too lax.

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

Companies have been wound up over much lower rates tbh. Or perhaps more accurately in some cases, Indeed, owing HMRC in excess of £750- not £750,000 but £750- can be grounds.

https://www.ukliquidators.org.uk/company-debt-advice/can-hmrc-force-my-company-into-liquidation

How on earth did HMRC let it get anywhere this amount. Why was the attempted winding up order in Jan 2020 thrown out too?

Suffice to say, I would not want Derby to go bust but if it's at the expense of a) A haircut for the taxpayer or b) EFL post Insolvency Regs being compromised in any respect then it might be the lesser of two evils.

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

In respect of HMRC, they cannot just do what they like. I expect that this might have interest in Nottingham and Leeds. ;)

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-adjudicator-s-office

Unsure if the rules and law have changed- this was 2007- but they do owe a duty of care as an organisation to the taxpayer.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/business-tax/court-finds-taxpayers-can-sue-hmrc-for-damages

To what extent would say 35% in 3 years- so a theoretical let's say reduction of £23.4m in the debts due to HMRC, be working on behalf of the taxpayer? Would complaints to MPs be in order if this is permitted to stand.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Companies have been wound up over much lower rates tbh. Or perhaps more accurately in some cases, Indeed, owing HMRC in excess of £750- not £750,000 but £750- can be grounds.

https://www.ukliquidators.org.uk/company-debt-advice/can-hmrc-force-my-company-into-liquidation

One wonders if they took a lax line owing to Mel's 2017 donation? Well who knows...

Favours to Red Wall types? Who knows.

I would say, liquidation would be a morally more palatable option than a) A major HMRC haircut or b) Any kind of compromise on EFL regs.

I'm sure the local MPs will want to take credit for saving the club but I don't think there is any political conspiracy.

Much more likely that HMRC will have no problem putting a small club out of business but not a major one. Bad PR as they would get the blame for Derby's demise regardless of Morris being the one and only culprit.

But of course HMRC don't do sweetheart deals, honest guv.?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chinapig said:

I'm sure the local MPs will want to take credit for saving the club but I don't think there is any political conspiracy.

Much more likely that HMRC will have no problem putting a small club out of business but not a major one. Bad PR as they would get the blame for Derby's demise regardless of Morris being the one and only culprit.

But of course HMRC don't do sweetheart deals, honest guv.?

 

Valid and fair points- but Derby doesn't exist in a bubble, so what's good for one part of the country can be seen as special favours elsewhere- complaints to MPs in other parts of the country?

Would waiving of a good slug of debt for one company/one part of the country be deemed a questionable subsidy or is that a bridge too far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Valid and fair points- but Derby doesn't exist in a bubble, so what's good for one part of the country can be seen as special favours elsewhere- complaints to MPs in other parts of the country?

Would waiving of a good slug of debt for one company/one part of the country be deemed a questionable subsidy or is that a bridge too far?

I keep referring to sweetheart deals so people can judge for themselves here whether letting a business off paying 65% of its liability is consistent with what HMRC claims:

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

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hmrc-responses-to-inaccurate-claims#hmrc-does-not-do-sweetheart-deals-with-anyone

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Valid and fair points- but Derby doesn't exist in a bubble, so what's good for one part of the country can be seen as special favours elsewhere- complaints to MPs in other parts of the country?

Would waiving of a good slug of debt for one company/one part of the country be deemed a questionable subsidy or is that a bridge too far?

I suspect other clubs who pay their taxes will have something to say but I doubt politicians or indeed the media will be bothered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In respect of HMRC, they cannot just do what they like. I expect that this might have interest in Nottingham and Leeds. ;)

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-adjudicator-s-office

Unsure if the rules and law have changed- this was 2007- but they do owe a duty of care as an organisation to the taxpayer.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/business-tax/court-finds-taxpayers-can-sue-hmrc-for-damages

To what extent would say 35% in 3 years- so a theoretical let's say reduction of £23.4m in the debts due to HMRC, be working on behalf of the taxpayer? Would complaints to MPs be in order if this is permitted to stand.

100% correct in that we cannot do what we want in relation to HMRC, but, if there's an agreed deal between HMRC and us then are we doing as we want?

Playing devil's advocate on would a reduction of £23m (or whatever figure it ends up being) be working on behalf of the taxpayer; would holding out for everything and getting nothing if the club is liquidated + future payments(!!) also be in the taxpayers interest? (by the way not ignoring the flipside that it sets a precedent for other teams doing the same but just saying why it can be viewed as being in taxpayers interest).

Ultimately I'm with Chinapig that rightly or wrongly it would be PR disaster for them if we went pop. Personally massively conflicted if it does play out this way but I can see why it would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derby_Ram said:

100% correct in that we cannot do what we want in relation to HMRC, but, if there's an agreed deal between HMRC and us then are we doing as we want?

Playing devil's advocate on would a reduction of £23m (or whatever figure it ends up being) be working on behalf of the taxpayer; would holding out for everything and getting nothing if the club is liquidated + future payments(!!) also be in the taxpayers interest? (by the way not ignoring the flipside that it sets a precedent for other teams doing the same but just saying why it can be viewed as being in taxpayers interest).

Ultimately I'm with Chinapig that rightly or wrongly it would be PR disaster for them if we went pop. Personally massively conflicted if it does play out this way but I can see why it would.

Sorry, what I mean is- I worded it badly, HMRC perhaps cannot just do what they like without challenge in theory, although in practice yes probably they can to an extent.

That's also fair. Future returns are a consideration but perhaps shouldn't be decisive- arguments for and against. On the other hand if HMRC in quite a high profile case get zilch, but the entity is wound up or liquidated then that sends out a message to businesses large and small, self-employed whoever that HMRC will get their dues or the individual or entity will suffer the full consequences. Talking wider than just football btw.

PR disaster? What about repayment over 10 years say. Are there any regulations surrounding an ability to take £x or x% of entity turnover and ringfence it for HMRC debts...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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