StarterForTen

30 minutes ago, Carnero said:

£55m sale price would require HMRC to accept c.£20m (2/3rds of what they're owed).

MSD £20m + £1.5m (additional funding)

Admin fees £3m

Football creditors £9m

Unsecured creditors £1.5m (25%)

That looks a plausible deal.

if that gets DCFC with the stadium, a long lease on the academy and a clean slate to keep the young players, it sounds fair to me. 

14 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

Let's just admit nobody knows for sure we need to wait and see what the administrator days once the deal is or is not done.

What? Take a patient and pragmatic view when we can keep feeding this thread with non-informed opinion so as it can go round-and-round in circles for another 100 pages?

Where's the fun in that?

3 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

HMRC have no tax raising powers, so how can they be targetted on future tax revenues? I may be wrong - it is not my field - but surely they can only be targetted on collection success?

Spot on @i-Ram. I've posted before that HMRC are the tax system's collection agency - sometimes it's bailiffs too! Their remit is very specific and it is to collect taxes that are due - or as much of that amount as is possible. Too many on here are politicising their role.

Being made preferential within the unsecured creditors list is just a (quite handy) tool to ensure they get as much as possible. But getting as much as possible is their only brief - not laying down markers for future football-related insolvencies.

And what is it with this argument about HMRC protecting future tax revenue streams by helping to keep DCFC alive? This is just not logical! DCFC - as far as HMRC are concerned - are merely a tax collection instrument and if it was not there, the vast majority of the tax funds it scoops up will be diverted to other tax collection instruments.

We should remember that the CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement) of debt reduction to sell to a new owner (and exit administration) needs to be agreed by a vote of creditors, with 75% (by value of debt) agreeing to the terms.

When Mel's book debt is taken into account, the monies owed to HMRC is less than 25% of the total, so they may not get to block a CVA vote anyway. It will depend on how Mel plays his hand.

47 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Don't forget the P&S restraints on the club. With our P&S record being 'wiped clean', it means our P&S loss for this season cannot exceed £13m, and the total for this season and next cannot exceed £26m.

With Jozwiak and Bielik currently having estimated book values of £2.5m and £5m respectively, it's unlikely we can sell either for less than that without selling someone else to make up the shortfall.

Those P+S limits only apply to Championship clubs though.

Assuming we are relegated, which is likely, may as well take book losses next season.

Follow Leeds Rhinos and drink whiskey. Not in that order. 

I'll be doing it at home, as I won't be at the match.

I'm a fully paid up lily-livered liberal, but cases like this make even me wish capitol punishment was still on the statute.

8 minutes ago, Rab a dab doo said:

Half a cup is always better than no cup at all !

Is that Nottingham Forest's club motto?

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

I'm not an economist (my expertise is in political theory) but if you allow big institutions in local communities to fail that does have an impact on the local economy. Think of all the DCFC employees, the pubs and restaurants that do business around the area on match days etc. etc. that will be affected if the club goes under. It would have a ripple effect that harms businesses in the area that would have a further  effect etc. 

Absolutely right, but that's looking at it purely in local terms. As far as HMRC's overall Tax revenues are concerned it will make not a jot of difference, that's the point I was attempting to make.

It was just a counter to the idea that HMRC might consider future lost revenues from DCFC if the entity was liquidated - they won't.

As I have said all along, pragmatism will ALWAYS win the day, and that means HMRC will take what they can and move on.

Potential future revenues will not be a consideration for HMRC, only recovering as much from current liabilities as possible.

To suggest removing Derby County from the economic landscape would be a net deficit in tax revenues is misguided as those revenues will simply be made up from activity elsewhere. It's not as if we won't spend the same amount each year because we will.

For example, if the money normally spent on four season tickets is instead spent on a plasma screen TV the VAT on the spend is exactly the same in terms of HMRC revenue.

In fact the Government would be better off from my £550 season ticket spend if it went elsewhere as most of it will go on single malt, and that attracts an even higher tax levy!!

???

Got a good feeling about this one. For no apparent reason whatsoever.

Brizzle 0 Derby 3

FRGS: Lawrence

11 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

It's the way of the world, It aint right nor is it fare...but it is what it is.

It's called capitalism. But in most people's eye, the alternatives are grimmer.

I've mentioned this before but we all have to realise that HMRC are cash collectors, they are not politicised to 'make examples' of people and/or corporate entities. To pursue a path that will knowingly reduce realised debts into the public purse is 100% against their very reason for existing.

Quite rightly they will play hard ball but, ultimately, they will make a decision that brings the best possible fiscal return their way. That is highly unlikely to be from seeing a liquidation.

More likely than liquidation is a further points penalty for exiting Admin without a CVA that pays all creditors at least 25% of listed debt. HMRC know very well how these things work and where they sit in the pecking order of asset distribution - it may mean their settlement leaves insufficient sums in the 'asset pot' for lesser-ranked creditors to be paid 25% of listed debt, and that would trigger a further points penalty from the League (15 I believe, but I'm not certain) and quite possibly a harsher Business Plan to work under for the next two years.

The Administrators are merely the go-betweens in this and are there to act on the behalf of all creditors - which, of course, includes HMRC. They will know what the maximum they will be able to extract from a buyer is and will be relaying that to HMRC and other higher-ranked creditors.

One of those discussions might be that if HMRC insist on taking all of what is left in the pot after more preferential creditors have been paid then prospective buyers won't proceed at all, as it will mean a further points penalty and devalue further what they are trying to buy.

This will go on for quite some time I am sure, but ultimately, pragmatism will prevail. It always does in the end.

If the reporting on his wage level is to be believed (£38k per week?), then selling him for £500k in January has a net input of circa £1.5m to cashflow projections to the end of the season, which might go a long way in keeping our nostrils above the water line until the end of the season if a buyer is not found in the short term.

And I have never answered a question correctly on University Challenge...

18 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

yes but I went to school in rural east anglia where you are challenged by classmates being able to count to 12 on fingers for a start.

And where they think the World Wide Web is a database of people who were born in Suffolk and emigrated. I have lived there too, before escaping to North Yorkshire, which is an equally forward-thinking county....

2 minutes ago, Rev said:

Apart from the fact it would break EFL and FA rules, that is.

You sure about that? 

Sadly, this is going to be messy.

Fulham 4 - Derby 1

FRGS: Davies

25 minutes ago, Crewton said:

If you give the job to one of our keepers, it could take a long time (joke, lads ?)

I don't know, they seem pretty adept at chucking them in... its keeping them out that's the problem.

0-2

11 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

All clubs acused of breaching FFP/P&S rules are charged before being punished - but we weren't.

All clubs breaching FFP/P&S rules are punished based on a sliding scale dependent upon the size of the breach - but we weren't.

No they aren't - what about Reading?

29 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

Given that the statements have been reviewed by a large number of people and you seem to be prretty much the only one to come to this conclusion, please could you explain to us mere mortals how you KNOW this....

How can it be a business plan for exiting Administration when we haven't exited Administration? That's how I KNOW it's not a business plan for exiting Administration.

All clubs exiting Administration are subject to an EFL business plan but, as I wrote, I have no idea how strict that might be.

1 hour ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

And the business plan only applies this season if I read it correctly which could be seen as a concession from the EFL given their rules state 2 year business plan on exiting administration.

This Business Plan isn't the one for exiting Administration - that's still to come! Our current one is just a business plan assigned to the agreed decision for the accrued P&S breaches.

I think we should brace ourselves for further restrictions covering next season (and maybe even the season after that) as part of the CVA agreement on leaving Administration. No idea how strict that could be.

In order to make a claim papers have to be served on an individual or entity - you can’t just sue ‘Derby County’. The legal entity that is Derby County is one of the limited companies that is currently in Administration. If the claim was valid the administrator would not be selling as a going concern, he’d be looking to sell the assets (including the EFL golden share) to a NewCo in order to disenfranchise the claim.

This does not appear to be the pathway we are on so this is just water muddying. 
 

26 minutes ago, rad1919 said:

What are the exact implications for future transfer windows/spending on players? I’m sure it’s all on here somewhere but a summary would be helpful if anyone would be so kind!

As far as January goes, no fees can be paid - so it's freebies only. The Business plan only covers this season; there are no restrictions after June 30th (the official end of player contracts).

However... this might not be the end of it. This Business Plan is just part of the current agreed sanctions but to exit an Administration the EFL normally require a rigid business plan in place to allow the new owners to take the 'Golden Share', so who knows what that might entail.