Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County


havanatopia
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

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.

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 . 
 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
  • Flames 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 by chinapig
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

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.

That was in essence my point, the penalties need to be rapid and draconian. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

That about right?

Yes - Unless somebody else comes in to pay the bills immediately after Kirchner walks and completes rapidly thereafter.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

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

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

  • 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

  • The title was changed to Derby County

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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