Derby County

[Waconda]

On 06/04/2022 at 22:57, Davefevs said:

Out of interest, what did I do / post to turn you from being all “pally” with me to becoming all passive aggressive and trolling my posts?

Probably about the time you published private messages between us on a public forum to gain favour with your "gang" mates.

Sadly that revealed the type of character you are and that everything you post therefore needs to be scrutinised and challenged.

Just because you spoke to Gould once and can manufacture often meaningless spreadsheets does not not make you the expert you seem to advertise yourself as.

My opinion just as valid as yours or anyone else's on here as as long as that principle is adhered to then no problem surely ?

[Red-Robbo]

45 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

It would be funny for me as my youngest son is a Newcastle fan ( glory hunter since the Keegan days! ) and couldn’t wait to see the back of Ashley. 
My eldest son was born in Derby , guess who he supports? 
 

 

I told my kids they'll be disinherited if they support anyone other than City.   

[cheese]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I told my kids they'll be disinherited if they support anyone other than City.   

Yeah, but perhaps you got stuff they can inherit!  

[Red-Robbo]

28 minutes ago, cheese said:

Yeah, but perhaps you got stuff they can inherit!  

 

My vintage programme collection. 

[Sir Geoff]

Didn't a PNE 'insider' tell Kieren Maguire that Kitchener was unable to show that he had the funds to buy them, which is why the deal went belly up.

[ExiledAjax]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

The plot thicketh 

Conspiracy theory: working with Ashley, pull out at last minute, leaving Ashley (who Morris won’t want to own DC) as the only option.

"Sportsmail has been told he never proved the source of his funding but did provide a bank statement showing a balance of over £60million. It is claimed Kirchner said he made the money from bitcoin investments.

It is also understood that Preston had to write the buyer’s business plan, needed to satisfy the EFL he could finance the club for the next 18 months. As one source said: ‘Preston never really knew if he had the money or where it came from."

So he's got the deposit, which came from a bit of luck getting in early on bitcoin, but he can't prove that he can pay the mortgage, bills, or for the repairs to the roof, carpet, and walls.

 

 

[Hxj]

53 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

So he's got the deposit, which came from a bit of luck getting in early on bitcoin,

Allegedly.

It's surprisingly easy (if you can pay the fee) to borrow £60 million for the time needed for it to appear in a bank account in your name.

But of course any withdrawals are blocked without the permission of the bank.

[Colemanballs]

Michael Knighton mark II?

[Major Isewater]

6 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Is it Stevenage?

In one. 

[Hxj]

So great day for Derby, Reading lost.  Oh but Derby lost too.

Reading still on 37 points and Derby on 28, with 5 to play. Derby need to take 9 more points over five games, that's 1.8 extra points a game, some task as that is automatic promotion performance

More interestingly if Reading get no more points, Derby can only do this by winning at least three games or wining 2 and drawing 3.  Based upon that scenario the earliest that Derby can get relegated is on Saturday 23 April ...

Assuming the remaining results go against them against them it could be Monday 18 April against QPR.

Of course Derby also need to get one more point than Barnsley to finish ahead of them, and the same as Peterborough to stay ahead of them.

Edited April 9, 2022 by Hxj

[chinapig]

Kieran Maguire said on his podcast this morning that, if his sources are accurate, the bid is not good news for HMRC and unsecured creditors. As he rightly said, Kirchner had his bid roundly rejected in December and he certainly won't have increased it since.

This comes as no surprise of course but there is a long way to go on this yet.

[exAtyeoMax]

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Kieran Maguire said on his podcast this morning that, if his sources are accurate, the bid is not good news for HMRC and unsecured creditors. As he rightly said, Kirchner had his bid roundly rejected in December and he certainly won't have increased it since.

This comes as no surprise of course but there is a long way to go on this yet.

Thanks, I'll have to listen to the pod, because I don't understand that bit

[chinapig]

9 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Thanks, I'll have to listen to the pod, because I don't understand that bit

It implies that HMRC will have to take a haircut one way or another. Whether they are prepared to do so remains to be seen, though they may come under political pressure perhaps.

I certainly can't see Kirchner having the money or the will to pay the debt in full.

[Hxj]

8 hours ago, chinapig said:

This comes as no surprise of course but there is a long way to go on this yet.

I'm still led to undertand that the money will have run out four weeks today.  An awful lot to do in so little time, If it does progress I bet some lawyers are going to be earning big style over the Easter weekend. 

[slartibartfast]

10 hours ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Thanks, I'll have to listen to the pod, because I don't understand that bit

Yes, I thought there is no "bad news" for HMRC.......they come first, it's the law ?

The "political pressure"...... is that for, or against WRDC ?

[Lanterne Rouge]

5 minutes ago, slartibartfast said:

Yes, I thought there is no "bad news" for HMRC.......they come first, it's the law ?

The "political pressure"...... is that for, or against WRDC ?

Perhaps we`ll find out that Derby have been registered as a non-dom and have paid all their taxes in the People`s Republic of Matlock.

[exAtyeoMax]

12 minutes ago, slartibartfast said:

Yes, I thought there is no "bad news" for HMRC.......they come first, it's the law ?

The "political pressure"...... is that for, or against WRDC ?

Yes, I listened and still don't understand what they meant.

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, slartibartfast said:

Yes, I thought there is no "bad news" for HMRC.......they come first, it's the law ?

The "political pressure"...... is that for, or against WRDC ?

No, football creditors come first. HMRC are not going to get their money up front or in full so either they accept a payment plan or go for a winding up order. Then they would be blamed for the club's demise and Morris would be off the hook.

The political pressure in Derby's favour comes from the local MPs. It was debated in the Commons after all, with some push for HMRC to go easy on them. There are votes to be had if you claim that you saved the club from the evil taxman.

Still, trust the process eh? Cynical, me?

[PHILINFRANCE]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

No, football creditors come first. HMRC are not going to get their money up front or in full so either they accept a payment plan or go for a winding up order. Then they would be blamed for the club's demise and Morris would be off the hook.

I may be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the law changed fairly recently so that, quite rightly in my opinion, HMRC’s claim now takes preference over football creditors.

[slartibartfast]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

No, football creditors come first. HMRC are not going to get their money up front or in full so either they accept a payment plan or go for a winding up order. Then they would be blamed for the club's demise and Morris would be off the hook.

The political pressure in Derby's favour comes from the local MPs. It was debated in the Commons after all, with some push for HMRC to go easy on them. There are votes to be had if you claim that you saved the club from the evil taxman.

Still, trust the process eh? Cynical, me?

I would have thought the votes are inconsequential, that area is staunch Tory anyhow. Would have thought in this financial country wide mess ,the last thing the government would want was someone else "getting away with it "?

[chinapig]

8 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I may be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the law changed fairly recently so that, quite rightly in my opinion, HMRC’s claim now takes preference over football creditors.

The law was changed as you say but to make them a secondary preferential creditor. For EFL purposes football creditors still come first.

[chinapig]

8 hours ago, slartibartfast said:

I would have thought the votes are inconsequential, that area is staunch Tory anyhow. Would have thought in this financial country wide mess ,the last thing the government would want was someone else "getting away with it "?

You may well be right and I'm speculating.

If the situation arises I suppose there might be a tension between "we saved WRDC from the evil taxman" and "we can't let people not pay their taxes, let this be a lesson to others". Of course Morris is morally responsible but not legally so either way he gets away with it.

The local MPs have made a big deal of how much they are doing to save the club so there might be a negative impact on their reputations at least if the club is liquidated.

I also wonder if the public at large would be as bothered about a football club not paying its taxes as they would be a politician.

Time is running out so we'll soon know.

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

The law was changed as you say but to make them a secondary preferential creditor. For EFL purposes football creditors still come first.

And this is the nub of one of the issues for the club coming out of Administration.  HMRC are perfectly entitled to sit there and say, "No problem, we will just sit and collect our preferential debt in line with the law and our published practice."  Not much anyone can really do about that, not even the EFL.  Given the Administrators are personally liable, would they knowing hand over several millions of pounds to Football Creditors ahead of a preferential creditor. 

Despite what they might say backbench MPs have little real sway over HMRC, which has no minister presiding over it.

Wonder if someone will seek a Judicial Review of any decision to not collect the full preferential share, that could really screw matters up. 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

And this is the nub of one of the issues for the club coming out of Administration.  HMRC are perfectly entitled to sit there and say, "No problem, we will just sit and collect our preferential debt in line with the law and our published practice."  Not much anyone can really do about that, not even the EFL.  Given the Administrators are personally liable, would they knowing hand over several millions of pounds to Football Creditors ahead of a preferential creditor.

Presumably that scenario would see a club booted from the EFL? Not paying Football creditors in full etc.

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

Despite what they might say backbench MPs have little real sway over HMRC, which has no minister presiding over it.

Chancellor of the Exchequer? Only possible one I can think of or is that just the Treasury. Granted, as Chancellor they should especially in these times be as pro as big a tax take as possible.

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

Wonder if someone will seek a Judicial Review of any decision to not collect the full preferential share, that could really screw matters up. 

IIRC there are categories of HMRC debt that aren't preferential. All the same a lot of Derby's is! By not collect do you mean not collect all at once ie a chunk now and the rest over x years or do you just mean verbatim write off a good chunk.

[PHILINFRANCE]

3 hours ago, chinapig said:

The law was changed as you say but to make them a secondary preferential creditor. For EFL purposes football creditors still come first.

 

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

And this is the nub of one of the issues for the club coming out of Administration.  HMRC are perfectly entitled to sit there and say, "No problem, we will just sit and collect our preferential debt in line with the law and our published practice."  Not much anyone can really do about that, not even the EFL.  Given the Administrators are personally liable, would they knowing hand over several millions of pounds to Football Creditors ahead of a preferential creditor. 

Wonder if someone will seek a Judicial Review of any decision to not collect the full preferential share, that could really screw matters up. 

So, if I understand the situation correctly, the law has indeed changed, as I suggested in my earlier post.

The Law states that HMRC are first in line as preferential creditors, although, in effect, the EFL are saying their internal rules overide the Law and HMRC's published practice.

If my understanding is correct, and I am sure somebody more knowledgeable than me will be able to advise, some interesting times lie in wait.

I still foresee CK pulling out when/if he realises HMRC won't budge from their stated position, and either Mike Ashley stepping in at the last minute to 'save' the club out of goodwill  or liquidation.

 

[Hxj]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Presumably that scenario would see a club booted from the EFL? Not paying Football creditors in full etc.

That's my understanding.

 

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Nope - as you say HM Treasury

 

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

IIRC there are categories of HMRC debt that aren't preferential.

The preferential ones are those collected on behalf of government, so VAT and PAYE/NIC.  But not Corporation Tax or Employers' NIC.

 

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

By not collect do you mean not collect all at once ie a chunk now and the rest over x years or do you just mean verbatim write off a good chunk.

I mean not collecting because they forgo their preferential rights in a CVA for example.  It is rare for there to be any term payments in a CVA, assets are transferred to a NewCo and OldCo goes into liquidation, extingushing any remainder.

[Hxj]

5 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

The Law states that HMRC are first in line as preferential creditors, although, in effect, the EFL are saying their internal rules overide the Law and HMRC's published practice.

If my understanding is correct

Roughly correct - Technically HMRC are behind, secured creditors (to the extent of their security), loans by Administrator, fees and costs of the Administration, preferential creditiors (redundancy pay, employees pension contributions etc), then second preferential creditors HMRC (as above), then unsecured creditors (including Football creditors), then shareholders.

EFL rules say that Football Creditors are 'super-preferential creditors'.

HMRC have a published practice which states that they will not agree to a CVA where, to paraphrase, non-football unsecured creditors are shafted by Football Creditors.  In the Derby case HMRC control any exit from Administration.

[ScottishRed]

I would be more than surprised if HMRC agreed to any CVA that did not pay them in full.

Not only does that create a very dangerous precedent it would also cause outrage amongst the general public in these very difficult times.

As a tax payer I would certainly be less than impressed and I am sure I would be in a large majority.

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Roughly correct - Technically HMRC are behind, secured creditors (to the extent of their security), loans by Administrator, fees and costs of the Administration, preferential creditiors (redundancy pay, employees pension contributions etc), then second preferential creditors HMRC (as above), then unsecured creditors (including Football creditors), then shareholders.

EFL rules say that Football Creditors are 'super-preferential creditors'.

HMRC have a published practice which states that they will not agree to a CVA where, to paraphrase, non-football unsecured creditors are shafted by Football Creditors.  In the Derby case HMRC control any exit from Administration.

I guess from Mr P’s point of view, the EFL rules don’t trump Administration Laws, just dictate whether Derby 1) stay in the EFL or not and 2) receive a 15 point deduction.

[Mr Popodopolous]

28 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

I would be more than surprised if HMRC agreed to any CVA that did not pay them in full.

Not only does that create a very dangerous precedent it would also cause outrage amongst the general public in these very difficult times.

As a tax payer I would certainly be less than impressed and I am sure I would be in a large majority.

Agreed on all points, although a) The numbers I have seen mooted on various social media this last 6 months were 25% to a third as the exit deal number. Time will tell and b) The precedent argument has been challenged although this latter bit was on Dcfcfans.

The optics of any sweetheart deal would be terrible though for the reasons that you state.