PistoldPete

Well frankly that’s rubbish from Mel. 
 
I questioned the signing of butterfield at the time we had hendrick who I thought was better and younger. 
 
so that’s rubbish to say the fans were wanting the likes of butterfield signed.

Well frankly that’s rubbish from Mel. 
 
I questioned the signing of butterfield at the time we had hendrick who I thought was better and younger. 
 
so that’s rubbish to say the fans were wanting the likes of butterfield signed.

Tbh I have never sung “he’s one of our own”. But anyway the suggestion that any of this is the fault of rams fans is outrageous. 
 
I don’t think Any fans were demanding that we sign anya .. . and the off chance of us reaching the promised land was hardly an ever an off chance. 
 
 As for duck the Efl . Yes duck em and good riddance when they get stripped of their regulatory powers.

Even if they were valid claims , it would only mean we have much bigger and better claims against villa and QPR.

Tbh I have never sung “he’s one of our own”. But anyway the suggestion that any of this is the fault of rams fans is outrageous. 
 
I don’t think Any fans were demanding that we sign anya .. . and the off chance of us reaching the promised land was hardly an ever an off chance. 
 
 As for duck the Efl . Yes duck em and good riddance when they get stripped of their regulatory powers.

Your son is obviously a genius and blessed with huge powers of empathy and perception - a chip off the old block in all likelihood. Sorry all of us other Derby fans are a disappointment

Poo is exactly what Gibson and Wycombe claims are. They should be flushed down the bog.

I will crowdfund it if Wycombe get a penny from us. It would then be a dead cert that we get money from qpr or villa if that is the precedent.

The revenues job is to collect taxes due . And what if they can’t ? There must be process for them to collect as much as they can. 

Poo is exactly what Gibson and Wycombe claims are. They should be flushed down the bog.

I will crowdfund it if Wycombe get a penny from us. It would then be a dead cert that we get money from qpr or villa if that is the precedent.

Good luck Rams against The Massive ,hope you stay up .
Your fans were some of the most fervant in our fight against the Oystons, hope to see  you in the Championship next season. 

I hope this is true. Otherwise I blame you.

Alarmist and sensationalist.

I have not said they have to accept £7m. We don’t know what the buyers have offered. It will be no less than £7m. It may be more.
Hmrc should aim to get the best they can. If they force liquidation then they get nothing.

I have not said they have to accept £7m. We don’t know what the buyers have offered. It will be no less than £7m. It may be more.
Hmrc should aim to get the best they can. If they force liquidation then they get nothing.

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?

I hope we will not be as desperate as Bolton. 

So why would you exclude season ticket sales? Or match day income? Or tv money if we are on sky? 

 That’s a lot of income to ignore. 

Buchanan likely to go as his contract is up in summer.

So to the  general taxpayer ,  the message is we would rather see you go bust and pay us nothing than let you pay us what you can afford. , 
strange kind of message if that is what it is.

I hope we will not be as desperate as Bolton. 

The rules for preference are set out in law for different industries at different times. They are where they are on the list because of the law. As are MSD and whoever else. No precedent is set by how much they get from a failed business being liquidated or re financed. Preferential doesn’t mean you get all your money back .. it’s just the order on a list. It doesn’t alter the facts. In the same way, MSD’s position is what it is because of how they lent money and secured it. The only thing that might change is that HMRC will be less likely to let PAYE debt extend to such large amounts before issuing winding up orders against football companies. 

That argument has already been destroyed earlier in the thread. For a start, if you want a deterrent, to even have chance of working as a deterrent,  you have to apply the penalty to the person who takes the  action  you are trying to prevent ie the former owner , not the creditors and the fans.  
 
And actually its  silly argument anyway. To anyone deep in debt should HMRC really be saying we would rather than us accepting your offer to pay us what you can afford we would rather you went bust and you pay us nothing? 

Sorry Atherstone I don't understand your argument at all. 
The admin team are acting on behalf of the creditors. By far the biggest unsecured creditor are HMRC, so the admin team are trying to get the best deal for HMRC. The admin team are also in  advanced stages of a competitive bidding process so have secured the best offer they think they can for creditors from potential buyers. Why on Earth would HMRC think they can do better than that?
That offer may be less than a £1 for £1 debt that is currently owed to HMRC. But what does HMRC gain by rejecting the best offer that the admin team can obtain and sending the club into liquidation ? The offer will be at least 25 %, maybe more who knows. I think it unlikely it will be a full £1 for £1 owed to HMRC. But at the end of the process, it will probably be the best that the admin team can get, and the best deal that HMRC can get for the taxpayer.
The alternative is to forego a minimum of £7m up front and ongoing tax revenues of £6 million a year even in League One. If we get promoted to Championship a fair bit more.   Other businesses may have closed because they cannot cover their costs on an ongoing basis. Derby can, even in league One.