Derby County

[Bristol Rob]

1 minute ago, CyderInACan said:

What have Dick & Dom got to do with it?

BOGIES!

[exAtyeoMax]

2 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

What have Dick & Dom got to do with it?

I thought it was Trevor and Simon?! #wedontdoduvets

[CyderInACan]

1 minute ago, exAtyeoMax said:

I thought it was Trevor and Simon?! #wedontdoduvets

But they do do judo 

[exAtyeoMax]

17 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

But they do do judo 

We don’t do derby!

[exAtyeoMax]

4 hours ago, View from the Dolman said:

 

What a twonk!

[phantom]

23 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

What a twonk!

Good to see where his priorities lie 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, Monkeh said:

They aren't, they are in danger of being struck off if they don't submit soon

 

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

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

This is true although I wonder if they would have to submit once done...

...Even so, the EFL sanctions for non-submission of accounts should have been in play from much earlier. Maybe they were weaker then I dunno- or just an outrageous string of fortunate events...a disputed case followed by Covid followed by administration.

Irrespective of the striking off position, no accounts should mean no signings or even contract extensions until such time as the breaches rectified- EFL position. Whether to CH or uploaded to their website I don't mind.

[Derby_Ram]

16 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

I'm waiting for this thread to get very hot. Imminently.

When I said hot I didn't expect this hot!

14 hours ago, chinapig said:

The thing with Nixon is that Derby fans slagged him off when he was saying things they didn't like then fell in love with him when he appeared to become Kirchner's mouthpiece.

 

With Nixon he normally posts things which allows him to come back with "aye" no matter the outcome. Derby included in the past.

What's inescapable this time round is he's very close to Stretford who happens to be Rooney's agent and linked to Gary Cook and the CK bid. It wouldn't surprise me to see him as a board member should CK get a takeover over the line. When Nixon tweets about Derby at the minute he's being briefed by Stretford. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. What's true/what CK wants us to believe can be two different things.

 

Had to remove myself from the whole situation today. It's all become too much. From the same two sources who indicated Clowes was buying the ground - looks like this deal is in place if needed - they're saying the money laundering checks have finished and the money cleared. Frankly I just want it over. If, and its a huge monumemtal if, the money has cleared and a takeover happens, great, but by god I'll be petrified any other time money needs to leave the club. I'm just drained and sick at the moment.

[The Constant Rabbit]

For the sake of Bury and the other clubs who were expelled - enough.

Derby have had so much leeway it's ridiculous.

I couldn't care less if CK was a patsy for MA - enough.

 

Liquidate Derby and treat them the same as they have Bury.

 

This is a farce.

[chinapig]

2 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

When I said hot I didn't expect this hot!

With Nixon he normally posts things which allows him to come back with "aye" no matter the outcome. Derby included in the past.

What's inescapable this time round is he's very close to Stretford who happens to be Rooney's agent and linked to Gary Cook and the CK bid. It wouldn't surprise me to see him as a board member should CK get a takeover over the line. When Nixon tweets about Derby at the minute he's being briefed by Stretford. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. What's true/what CK wants us to believe can be two different things.

 

Had to remove myself from the whole situation today. It's all become too much. From the same two sources who indicated Clowes was buying the ground - looks like this deal is in place if needed - they're saying the money laundering checks have finished and the money cleared. Frankly I just want it over. If, and its a huge monumemtal if, the money has cleared and a takeover happens, great, but by god I'll be petrified any other time money needs to leave the club. I'm just drained and sick at the moment.

Thanks, very informed, informative and intelligently put as usual.

I admit I am deeply irritated (and sometimes amused) by many on the Derby forum as a result of the regular special pleading, conspiracy thinking and so on. More so since most of them don't seem to have ever read the EFL regulations or even understand what the EFL actually is.

We are fortunate on here to have people who are steeped in the regs and/or have considerable financial expertise.

I don't see that on the Derby forum but you are welcome here because you are clearly both knowledgeable and rational. We don't always have to agree to recognise that.

I understand how you are feeling so I hope for your sake at least that it is all sorted to your satisfaction soon. Take care.

[downendcity]

6 hours ago, Derby_Ram said:

When I said hot I didn't expect this hot!

 

No-one expects the OTIB inquisition.

Our weapon is fear and surprise.

Our 2 weapons are fear, surprise and Mr Popodopolous 

Among our many weapons are fear, surprise, Mr Popodopolous, Davefevs ............

[Port Said Red]

36 minutes ago, downendcity said:

No-one expects the OTIB inquisition.

Our weapon is fear and surprise.

Our 2 weapons are fear, surprise and Mr Popodopolous 

Among our many weapons are fear, surprise, Mr Popodopolous, Davefevs ............

Do you want to come in again?

[E.G.Red]

I wonder what this means in respect of Aden Flints move and indeed Wayne Rooney.

Edited June 9, 2022 by E.G.Red

[Monkeh]

1 hour ago, E.G.Red said:

I wonder what this means in respect of Aden Flints move and indeed Wayne Rooney.

No one is moving to Derby until its sorted,

They basically have a month and a bit to save the club,

They can start the season and postpone fixtures but that will only go on for so long before they are expelled (I think that happened to Bury and hereford)

[chinapig]

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

No-one expects the OTIB inquisition.

Our weapon is fear and surprise.

Our 2 weapons are fear, surprise and Mr Popodopolous 

Among our many weapons are fear, surprise, Mr Popodopolous, Davefevs ............

... and a fanatical devotion to amortisation.

[BTRFTG]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

This is true although I wonder if they would have to submit once done...

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.

 

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

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?

I'm going to repeat myself (again!) and point out that HMRC insist they never do sweetheart deals and always insist on full payment of the amount due.

They are going to have questions to answer if they give Derby special treatment, though they will be able to cite confidentiality. But I'm sure there will be club owners demanding answers nevertheless.

[BTRFTG]

12 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm going to repeat myself (again!) and point out that HMRC insist they never do sweetheart deals and always insist on full payment of the amount due.

They are going to have questions to answer if they give Derby special treatment, though they will be able to cite confidentiality. But I'm sure there will be club owners demanding answers nevertheless.

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

[BTRFTG]

19 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm going to repeat myself (again!) and point out that HMRC insist they never do sweetheart deals and always insist on full payment of the amount due.

They are going to have questions to answer if they give Derby special treatment, though they will be able to cite confidentiality. But I'm sure there will be club owners demanding answers nevertheless.

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.

[chinapig]

6 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

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.

Yes, they do give themselves a get out clause by saying they never accept an amount less than they expect a court would order. Not applicable here though as you say.

Perhaps their PR needs to stop using absolutes like never and always as it makes them look less than honest.

[chinapig]

I see Nixon is now saying Kirchner is on his third attempt to transfer the money as there were queries arising from money laundering checks.

This should be a big concern but he has compounded it apparently by saying Kirchner originally tried to get around the checks.

Probably a bad choice of words but if you are going to be somebody's mouthpiece it's probably not a good idea to imply he tried to circumvent the law.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

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.

 

You summarise well that Derby have already had an unfair advantage, now penalised (9 pts FFP and 12 pts Admin), but can’t be allowed more unfair advantage (over 71 other members) coming out of admin!

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I see Nixon is now saying Kirchner is on his third attempt to transfer the money as there were queries arising from money laundering checks.

This should be a big concern but he has compounded it apparently by saying Kirchner originally tried to get around the checks.

Probably a bad choice of words but if you are going to be somebody's mouthpiece it's probably not a good idea to imply he tried to circumvent the law.

I mean...everyone tries to 'get around' AML checks. They are annoying, and can at times be tricky to satisfy. Everyone tries to provide the absolute bare minimum of information necessary to sate the enforcers. It's not about 'avoiding' the checks, it's about doing the bare minimum. Same as with taxes - no one pays more than they reasonably need to, but likewise you make sure you don't break the law. You're right, Nixon has chosen his words carelessly.

That said, I've never seen a client or prospective purchaser 'fail' the checks three times. Generally people either comply on the first attempt or they disappear.

I suspect this is the receiving bank querying items, and CK/CK's sending bank cannot answer them. Likely source of wealth questions aren't being answered. Basically "how come you are so rich?" has to be answered with "by perfectly legal and explainable means which are X, Y, and Z". If it cannot be answered like that...well then there's a suspicion that you've got dodgy funds and banks, who have incredibly rigid matrixes and rules on this, won't take your money into their system.

[BTRFTG]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I mean...everyone tries to 'get around' AML checks. They are annoying, and can at times be tricky to satisfy. Everyone tries to provide the absolute bare minimum of information necessary to sate the enforcers. It's not about 'avoiding' the checks, it's about doing the bare minimum. Same as with taxes - no one pays more than they reasonably need to, but likewise you make sure you don't break the law. You're right, Nixon has chosen his words carelessly.

That said, I've never seen a client or prospective purchaser 'fail' the checks three times. Generally people either comply on the first attempt or they disappear.

I suspect this is the receiving bank querying items, and CK/CK's sending bank cannot answer them. Likely source of wealth questions aren't being answered. Basically "how come you are so rich?" has to be answered with "by perfectly legal and explainable means which are X, Y, and Z". If it cannot be answered like that...well then there's a suspicion that you've got dodgy funds and banks, who have incredibly rigid matrixes and rules on this, won't take your money into their system.

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.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

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.

 

Little bits of this I don't fully get although I broadly agree with the post.

"Save it's never done"- strikes me as an interesting test case because an EFL sanction- for which they are currently under embargo, there are 5 reasons in total is accounts not being submitted to CH- surely the EFL can insist upon no Embargo being lifted until such time as it has been done- for club and consolidator alike. One of them is accounts relating to P&S, one of them is accounts to the EFL and one of them is accounts to CH- the third one, "No accounts in the public domain- and that can include the website= no substantial lifting of the embargo".

Or more simply, it is one of the conditions of takeover being fully ratified at the EFL level that all requirements on the Embargo service have to be complied with in full. No full compliance=not in accordance with their regulations.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[BTRFTG]

10 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Little bits of this I don't fully get although I broadly agree with the post.

"Save it's never done"- strikes me as an interesting test case because an EFL sanction- for which they are currently under embargo, there are 5 reasons in total is accounts not being submitted to CH- surely the EFL can insist upon no Embargo being lifted until such time as it has been done- for club and consolidator alike. One of them is accounts relating to P&S, one of them is accounts to the EFL and one of them is accounts to CH- the third one, "No accounts in the public domain- and that can include the website= no substantial lifting of the embargo".

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.

Edited June 9, 2022 by BTRFTG

[BTRFTG]

37 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I mean...everyone tries to 'get around' AML checks. They are annoying, and can at times be tricky to satisfy.

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.......

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by BTRFTG

[Mr Popodopolous]

41 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

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.

It's a red herring as to whether they actually do in Derby's case. The closest we have come is 'indicative figures' and the reasons drop off the EFL Embargo list once rectified.

In particular, note Regulations 16.2, 16.3 and the one pertaining to Profit and Sustainability regs.

Post a takeover why should the Football League lift all if any of Regulations 16.2, 16.3 or Profit and Sustainability not complied with. Companies House or not, it still appears to be a Football League requirement...and the Agreed Decision offered a route by which this could be sorted too what with the alternative of publishing on the website or similar.

I totally agree on the 2nd bit...and the EFL Insolvency policy helps to an extent, what with spending limits for 2 maybe 3 years and a -15 if a minimum dividend to the correct categories not met, but whether it's enough is difficult to say.

My argument is basically that a takeover shouldn't relieve them of the obligation- or if if does then they remain under embargo until such time as it is resolved to the satisfaction of the Football League and no sooner.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

10 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

As you say it shouldn't be difficult for CK to comply

My experience is that AML/Client ID is never a problem.

1. The UK lawyers would have to have under taken the checks into ID and source of funds whilst taking on a client, ie not now.

2. Any banks involved in a large commercial transaction would be involved at the beginning, and again carry out their checks before opening any UK accounts for receipt of funds, ie not now.

3. Any solicitor's client account opened would be subject to the same checks when being opened, ie not now.

I can understand concerns about $20 million being wired from an obscure offshore bank, but that points more to the stupidity of those undertaking the transfer, which in itself would concern me,

[REDOXO]

57 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I mean...everyone tries to 'get around' AML checks. They are annoying, and can at times be tricky to satisfy. Everyone tries to provide the absolute bare minimum of information necessary to sate the enforcers. It's not about 'avoiding' the checks, it's about doing the bare minimum. Same as with taxes - no one pays more than they reasonably need to, but likewise you make sure you don't break the law. You're right, Nixon has chosen his words carelessly.

That said, I've never seen a client or prospective purchaser 'fail' the checks three times. Generally people either comply on the first attempt or they disappear.

I suspect this is the receiving bank querying items, and CK/CK's sending bank cannot answer them. Likely source of wealth questions aren't being answered. Basically "how come you are so rich?" has to be answered with "by perfectly legal and explainable means which are X, Y, and Z". If it cannot be answered like that...well then there's a suspicion that you've got dodgy funds and banks, who have incredibly rigid matrixes and rules on this, won't take your money into their system.

My very good friend was involved in the biggest sports franchise purchase in the world at the time. 
 

We had many conversations about FBI involvement in checks on funds on a daily basis and the hoops the Federal Government make you jump through. 
 

This purchase is a drop in the bucket compared to that one, however Kirschner and his company/ies have opened themselves up to a lot of questions in the domestic USA on that basis, coupled with moving large sums abroad. The Pound Sterling is cheap against USD so I suspect purchasing in the UK has attraction beyond football, but I would suggest there are a whole lot more hoops to jump through that meet the eye to most!
 

Nevertheless everyone working for Kirchner must know this stuff in advance, so I would wonder how much of a microscope Kirchner is under in both the US and the UK, never mind the banks!