Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County


havanatopia

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

…and yet they still owe Lech the instalment of Joswiak.

Since when have they given a toss about paying debts? And in the EFL's eyes foreign clubs don't count as football creditors anyway. Lech will be lucky to get 25% of what they are owed.

Still, is another extension for Kirchner now imminent I wonder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Since when have they given a toss about paying debts? And in the EFL's eyes foreign clubs don't count as football creditors anyway. Lech will be lucky to get 25% of what they are owed.

Still, is another extension for Kirchner now imminent I wonder?

FIFA hand down transfer bans for non payment of fees- a pretty good incentive to pay up.

3 windows was what they deemed the way forward for Cardiff and Sala...I don't see any particular grounds for dispute here from Derby that they owe Lech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

FIFA hand down transfer bans for non payment of fees- a pretty good incentive to pay up.

3 windows was what they deemed the way forward for Cardiff and Sala...I don't see any particular grounds for dispute here from Derby that they owe Lech.

Presumably Lech will have to take their case to FIFA then? Which kicks the can down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Presumably Lech will have to take their case to FIFA then? Which kicks the can down the road.

They should have been laying the groundwork if they have any sense. Can't do so while Derby are in administration but think FIFA can hand down or threaten a ban quite quickly.

If Cardiff lose their case, they could certainly get a 3 window Registration ban...that's still ongoing at the CAS I believe. Precedent?

Well either ongoing or the CAS panel have retired to consider their verdict.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Conditional sale completed last night/early this morning.

26 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Have we seen the end of this saga ? Hmmmm 

A lot of smoke and mirrors out there.

The conditions are what count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

A lot of smoke and mirrors out there.

The conditions are what count.

 

12 minutes ago, chinapig said:

In a statement, Quantuma said the exchange was "conditional on the sale of the stadium, EFL approval and receiving secured creditor consent".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61475788

So just minor admin stuff then.

Oh of course, I gave my view on conditional SPAs a few pages back.

As I said then, what he's done is presumably commit to funding, and other items, pending the conditions. As China points out here, those are not minor items.

One indicator will be filings on CH. AP01s and TM01s to change directors for example. Once they are done then we would know it is fully completed.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, East Londoner said:

So they haven’t agreed anything with HMRC then?

Who knows? There has largely been silence about this.

There have been claims that HMRC have accepted 35p in the £ to be paid over 3 years but I haven't seen any reputable source confirm this. Others may have though.

In January HMRC made a statement insisting they do not do sweetheart deals and always insist on the full amount due being paid.

But in the same statement they said they never accept less than a court would award, which seems like a bit of a get out clause.

If they settle for 35p they are going to set a precedent (though not a legal one I think) and possibly get a backlash from clubs who pay their taxes in full.

I still think this one will run and run.

 

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

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/39690-get-the-in-whats-first-priority/

This thread made me smile a little. Not one mention of something key...

Accounts. Don't see why any of the current conditions should be eased or amended until all outstanding accounts issues up to date.

HMRC wise, as china says largely radio silence on this one. If it goes to court, that could be a cram down couldn't it? The Football League were pretty hostile towards that approach in the winter although maybe that was specifically pertaining to the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims...

...Talking of the latter, Mr. Couhig should still be considering his options. Where there's blame, there's a claim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

In a statement, Quantuma said the exchange was "conditional on the sale of the stadium, EFL approval and receiving secured creditor consent".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61475788

So just minor admin stuff then.

Ironically the whole deal now appears to hinge on the co-operation and agreement of the man whose “market valuation” of Pride Park ,in order to duck and dive ffp, helped get DCFC into this sorry mess in the first place!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

HMRC wise, as china says largely radio silence on this one.

It will be dealt with through a CVA.  No need for a 'cross class cram down' if agreed.  I can't imagine that Kirchner would sign a conditional purchase contract without the parameters of the CVA agreed by the necessary parties.  

The next big event will be the 'retained list' I think the deadline for that is Saturday, will be a big pointer to how the business plan looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Hxj said:

It will be dealt with through a CVA.  No need for a 'cross class cram down' if agreed.  I can't imagine that Kirchner would sign a conditional purchase contract without the parameters of the CVA agreed by the necessary parties.  

The next big event will be the 'retained list' I think the deadline for that is Saturday, will be a big pointer to how the business plan looks.

Thought Quantuma were indicating that a CVA wouldn't be necessary. 

Business Plan is surely 2-3 years with the attached type of Embargo.

No transfer fees, no loan fees, no or limited signing on fees, highly limited agents fees and that's just for a start.

Would also add a nice condition might be £1 debt written off means £1 less able to be spent on  the team for the next 2 or depending on the terms, 3 years.

The EFL need to continue to come down hard.

Oh and what about the accounts, that is itself an Embargo matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

Who knows? There has largely been silence about this.

There have been claims that HMRC have accepted 35p in the £ to be paid over 3 years but I haven't seen any reputable source confirm this. Others may have though.

In January HMRC made a statement insisting they do not do sweetheart deals and always insist on the full amount due being paid.

But in the same statement they said they never accept less than a court would award, which seems like a bit of a get out clause.

If they settle for 35p they are going to set a precedent (though not a legal one I think) and possibly get a backlash from clubs who pay their taxes in full.

I still think this one will run and run.

 

I would be hugely surprised if HMRC agreed to this, legal or not, it is still a precedent that stretches across all businesses not just football.

I think that there will be a huge backlash from tax payers both corporate and individual who see a football club getting a sweetheart deal - it is simply not acceptable.

If the new ‘owner’ is prepared to pick-up the full bill, then no problem but it sets up a very dangerous scenario going forward. There will be companies out there queuing up to offer 35% of their tax bill rather than the full amount.

it is totally immoral if true.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

I would be hugely surprised if HMRC agreed to this, legal or not, it is still a precedent that stretches across all businesses not just football.

I think that there will be a huge backlash from tax payers both corporate and individual who see a football club getting a sweetheart deal - it is simply not acceptable.

If the new ‘owner’ is prepared to pick-up the full bill, then no problem but it sets up a very dangerous scenario going forward. There will be companies out there queuing up to offer 35% of their tax bill rather than the full amount.

it is totally immoral if true.

As I have stated many times, the precedent is one of HMRC getting as much as they possibly can. They will continue to deal on a case by case basis. If they think they can get 100% from the next club or business to enter administration they will push for it.

What you're arguing for is for HMRC to receive nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

As I have stated many times, the precedent is one of HMRC getting as much as they possibly can. They will continue to deal on a case by case basis. If they think they can get 100% from the next club or business to enter administration they will push for it.

What you're arguing for is for HMRC to receive nothing.

Your response is correct no doubt and of course there is no ethical dimension in the sense that the Morrises of this world tend to see paying taxes as rather optional. Why pay up when you can spend £10m on a player instead - and not pay that debt either - and have the fans adoring you?

Banks don't lend to football clubs because they are too high risk and it won't look good for them if they put a club out of business if it defaults. They know they would get the blame rather than the owner.

HMRC is in the same position. Though nobody is much bothered if they put a little club out of business (apart from 5 minutes of crocodile tears from the media) if they were to liquidate a club the size of Derby they would be portrayed as the evil empire. So they'll give the club leeway they wouldn't give to some poor sod running a small business in Derby and accept a fraction of what is due.

The only way football is going to get it's act together is if it's forced to by a regulator but if that doesn't happen then sooner or later HMRC is going to have to put a significant club out of business to encourage the others to comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The only way football is going to get it's act together is if it's forced to by a regulator but if that doesn't happen then sooner or later HMRC is going to have to put a significant club out of business to encourage the others to comply.

This ruling is part of the new uefa FFP rules.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Sorry, t’other way around….must keep “taxes” up to date.

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.

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

30 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Your response is correct no doubt and of course there is no ethical dimension in the sense that the Morrises of this world tend to see paying taxes as rather optional. Why pay up when you can spend £10m on a player instead - and not pay that debt either - and have the fans adoring you?

Banks don't lend to football clubs because they are too high risk and it won't look good for them if they put a club out of business if it defaults. They know they would get the blame rather than the owner.

HMRC is in the same position. Though nobody is much bothered if they put a little club out of business (apart from 5 minutes of crocodile tears from the media) if they were to liquidate a club the size of Derby they would be portrayed as the evil empire. So they'll give the club leeway they wouldn't give to some poor sod running a small business in Derby and accept a fraction of what is due.

The only way football is going to get it's act together is if it's forced to by a regulator but if that doesn't happen then sooner or later HMRC is going to have to put a significant club out of business to encourage the others to comply.

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.

  • Like 6
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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...