BTRFTG

Any idea who paid Derby's May wages? Rumour was Rooney but be good to know who and on what basis given Quantuma claimed to have the wherewithal to see Derby through the summer & that didn't happen.

Rather, dollars to which he's both entitled and which are not Ill-gotten gains.

Thanks. I forgot the detail but recalled it was something to do with a Catherine Cookson type homosexual liaison centuries back which, as you say, irked a nobbish relative of one of the characters referenced? Only the type of thing the upper classes could get worked up about....

All clubs are potentially huge and size should matter not as to how they are treated cf their peers. EFL Board have long since been known to favour certain clubs over others, that's why they did for Macclesfield who messed them around once too often despite being no worse off than other clubs the EFL bent over backwards to save. Derby have surpassed Macclesfield in the contempt with which they treat and hold their peers, the EFL and supporters in general. EFL have made mistakes but need to stop the rot today and if that requires the politically unpopular permanent explusion of Derby County, that's a price worth paying.

Or for us of a more senior generation

In addition to light pitches also need (sounds odd even saying it,) good ventilation. Grass likes a breeze blowing over it, not only to regulate moisture/dew but also to disperse gasses produced. Not much thought was given to this until filling in the corners of grounds became the norm and they sussed the worst pitches of the 60/70s were in wholly enclosed stadia. Today, big enclosed stadia either have banks of portable lights/fans or, in extreme cases, pitches that may be moved outside the stadium itself.

Is that before or after he gets his next scoop from Clinton Baptiste?

I think HMRC may have dropped this now (or are more lenient,) but there was a time, should an employer have deducted but not yet paid over tax and NI, that the employee could be charged by HMRC against the net figures they had received. I worked as a student on many a site where the gaffer had 'done a bunk'. Like any creditor HMRC have to pursue non payments, it's a civil not criminal debt. Derby clearly didn't dispute any penalties, non or deferred payment was their act of choice, robbing Peter to pay Paul in balancing the accounts to the EFL.

Believe their accounts if you will but the last period, end year 2018, which if impaired would have been written to Derby's benefit showed staff costs at £40.5m and sales of £29m, so there's roughly around £24m in that year that would have gone to HMRC. Suddenly £36m doesn't seem so much.

I remind it is DERBY were talking about here.... Amounts should not be in dispute as players will have documents showing earnings and sales receipts will have been recorded. Simply a case of Morris finding HMRC a soft touch and using their latitude to fund business rather than he.

I just looked at CK's LinkedIn profile and now know less about him than I did prior to visiting. At least you knew what you were letting yourself in for in the golden days of dubious income sources, you'll recall, 'Supplier of meats to Labour controlled authorities throughout the North West - service with a handshake....' Through condemned offal were such famous empires built.

Buffoon was indeed sacked from The Times, save if memory recalls it wasn't for EU bananas, rather a wholly obscure reference to implied, historic 'banana' activity between two nobs (see what I did there,) one of whom may (or may not) have been a distant relation of his. Some nobbish descendant took umbrage that their relation (far removed) had enjoyed 'haha' in the bucolic Ha Ha at their family residence. I recall Private Eye making 'Street of Shame' hay with the story. The Times has always been Europhile, unlike The Torygraph where Buffoon's banana story appeared.

I have it on good authority CK is using as collateral Michael Owen NFTs and as we know, they can't lose value ......

Appreciate what you say but honest folks understand why AML compliance exists and why the additional diligence and paperwork it generates is necessary. I'm pretty sure those who have been killed, robbed, defrauded, enslaved or had their lives ruined by drugs or sexual exploitation won't find them annoying. Nor the young, old, sick, vulnerable or needy from whom many such monies have been deprived. I once had access to a secure office which upon one large wall displayed mug shots of 'persons of interest'. They were in groups which one might easily have concluded were arranged by ethnicity, not the Producers, Transporters, Recruiters, Importers, Smugglers, Henchmen, Accountants & Bankers they were. My point? At the end of the wall there was also a selection of images of their victims. Staff new to their roles were directed to look at those images first, not avert their eyes to the horror. A stark and constant reminder of why such offices exist. As you say it shouldn't be difficult for CK to comply and if it is, well, that does tell its own story.......

EFL (supposedly) have the FFP/P&S accounts for each season that they've verified and (one assumes) are satisfied with. Problem being few others have access. CH accounts are a red herring, no longer need to be filed but will be going forward once out of administration. My point about it never being done is simply that should the world and his wife bend over excusing Derby of liabilities others are obliged to meet, well, where does that stop? Any club could enter a CVA with unsecured creditors so Derby isn't an exception provided they keep their end of the bargain, but other clubs are required to pay taxes in full so why should Derby be an exception? For as long as they retain an advantage (if granted,) in that respect they should be penalised season after season.

Any idea where the money is coming from as I thought CK was only the mouthpiece? Never sure how much to trust 'wealth' reports on the internet but in CK's case his personal wealth is reported as $4-5m. Decent enough but nothing special.

Yes. When The Fourth Estate was worth a light or in the rare exceptions where it still exists, salaried journalists have freedom and scope to investigate and build relationships. In his case the problem is his ex employers now only use UGC, with as few untrained staffs as possible compiling that and even on agency fill-in that's covering roles where experienced hacks of a certain generation and quality have taken the shekel and retired. So silly season, or in his case where sources have run dry, it's a case of invent to survive. Lost count of the number of his invented 'scoops' that come to nothing.

It's also true the majority of cases where HMRC do enter into sweetheart arrangements involve matters where, owing to complexities (often international tax considerations,) there's either dispute as to the amount of tax due or difficulty in HMRC being able to evidence that they believe they might be owed. That doesn't apply at Derby. Nearly all debt owed HMRC is either Income Tax deducted via PAYE, NI contributions & VAT. Demonstrable amounts Derby collected but failed to pass on.

They might wish for confidentiality but how might that be obscured in the administrators or restricted company accounts?

It's not an interview with me given he's blocked me on social media for reminding, as now a freelance, he's in the business of generating (aka manufacturing) his own stories for personal gain. One story he's reluctant to promote is why he's so ostracized from the present set-up at AG, tough read his output and that answers itself.

Save it's never done.... The Administrators will submit initial public accounts to CH either for the wound up entity or for the restructured entity. Thereafter it'll revert to the companies to file annual returns (what might possibly go wrong there with EFL's powerful sanctions particularly if, as previous, they choose not to use them for favoured members?) That's wholly different from the EFL who require all annual accounts for FFP/ P&S assessment. Supposedly they've had these (at the umpteenth request and having missed multiple deadlines,) but unlike all other clubs who may independently verify their peers accounts, fellow members have only the EFL board's take on how compliant they thought their returns were or whether Derby's accounts were non-impaired. Now suppose Derby come out of administration, repay all secured & football related debt, have paid or have plans to pay non-secured creditors, there's still the thorny matter of HMRC. In theory the owed £36m must be paid in full though there's a suggestion, due to political pressure, HMRC might be persuaded to settle for less. For every £ not repaid HMRC every other member club may rightfully claim that's an unfair advantage Derby have extracted from a supposed level playing field. Derby's peers will demonstrate they've had to pay tax owing, in many cases borrowing monies at commercial rates of interest so to do. Should the EFL not allow them all FFP/PS leeway in an equivalent amount to balance things up, and if doing so drive the final death nail into that preposterous control? And say a restructured Derby decides to take the 3 year plan for repayment of unsecured debt, will the EFL ensure through the distribution of their funds that such payments are met, or will they trust Derby to ensure payments are made, for which the have awful recent track record? Letting Derby off the hook time and again serves only to create future problems. EFL need to stand up and demonstrate why it is they exist. For sure they want to protect member clubs, but not at all cost. Derby have drunk the last chance saloon dry. Time to throw them out the door.

I believe, though stand to be corrected, that once in administration one doesn't need to file annual accounts to CH.

Accounts, eh, why have them? Last I heard Derby's position was something like: Admin Exit costs @£4m; Preferential football debt largely paid off through recent player disposals; Secured debt to MSD @£24m, though this could be resolved by taking collateral assets not owned by the club itself, rather in Morris' control; HMRC debt @£36m; Non preferential debt @£7m (the bit that requires 25-35% repayment.) There's also the mysterious payments made in the past two months that have kept the club afloat, though nobody's letting on who's made them and upon what basis (loan secured or otherwise, 'football loan' or gift?) Could be these, too, require repayment. Of course settling the above you'd get a ramshackle squad, the name and sod all else.

Derby's share and their membership is in breach during administration and remains so unless they can demonstrate reasons for it to be reinstated. From memory I think they are already subject to expulsion but that has finally to be ratified, hence the EFL setting conditions for their reinstatement, none of which have been met.

Does that mean fans in L1 who've bought STs for next season potentially have a claim for a non-fulfilled fixture against their own club, Derby and/or EFL should Derby fold? It's this type of impact that demonstrates why this has gone far enough. Derby couldn't give a stuff for other EFL members & supporters.