PistoldPete

If Derby are liquidated , HMRC gets nothing. So I think they do need to cooperate with any attempts to prevent that happening and HMRc getting something out of the current debt and plenty of tax going forward.

Well this was one of my criticisms of the Daily Mail article which said Cocu was a secured creditor . I am sure he isn’t , but Msd certainly are.

It could be curtains.

Not necessarily. It puts them in the driving seat in determining whether the club gets sold or liquidated but they're probably much more pragmatic than a bank, or even HMRC might be. - they're gamblers after all. I think it might even deter other creditors from pushing for liquidation, because it makes it more likely that others won't recover anything from the wreckage. 

In mel’s case he can try suing the fake sheikh but I wouldn’t fancy his chances of getting any money. 

Well this was one of my criticisms of the Daily Mail article which said Cocu was a secured creditor . I am sure he isn’t , but Msd certainly are.

The guy who took over Sunderland had been involved with them for some time so their position was sorted over a long period , but to start with they were in a far worse mess than us.  

We have sold Hughes , hendrick, bogle and Lowe plus got a bit of compo for Delap and Gordon . That easily has covered £2.5 m for   Last few seasons , plus we have several others who would fetch a few million more . 
 
£300 k to keep it going for another three months is neither here nor there. 

They were debt free after the takeover, certainly  not before. That  is quite common when you get new owners.  
 
Derby are also close to being sutainably run..once we get season ticket money in. Just the little matter of the debt and new owners to sort out.  

The Daily Fail article is up to their usual standard. Mixing up “:secured creditors” with “ preferred creditors” , mixing up market value with asset values, referring to an HMRC bail out (nobody is expecting HMRC ago pay any money into the club) . oh and then there are all those anonymous sources. 
 
If Sunderland were sold for £30 million that will reflect the club’s assets and their debts. Of course Derby’s market value is likely to be less than that, that is why they are in administration. Insolvency means the market value would be nothing .
 
but comparing market value with debts is just very misleading. 

We have sold Hughes , hendrick, bogle and Lowe plus got a bit of compo for Delap and Gordon . That easily has covered £2.5 m for   Last few seasons , plus we have several others who would fetch a few million more . 
 
£300 k to keep it going for another three months is neither here nor there. 

Sunderland had debts of £200 million and were losing £35 million a year so going on a path towards sustainability is all relative .. they were more of a basket case than we ever were.

We have sold Hughes , hendrick, bogle and Lowe plus got a bit of compo for Delap and Gordon . That easily has covered £2.5 m for   Last few seasons , plus we have several others who would fetch a few million more . 
 
£300 k to keep it going for another three months is neither here nor there. 

The Daily Fail article is up to their usual standard. Mixing up “:secured creditors” with “ preferred creditors” , mixing up market value with asset values, referring to an HMRC bail out (nobody is expecting HMRC ago pay any money into the club) . oh and then there are all those anonymous sources. 
 
If Sunderland were sold for £30 million that will reflect the club’s assets and their debts. Of course Derby’s market value is likely to be less than that, that is why they are in administration. Insolvency means the market value would be nothing .
 
but comparing market value with debts is just very misleading. 

Sunderland had debts of £200 million and were losing £35 million a year so going on a path towards sustainability is all relative .. they were more of a basket case than we ever were.

We have sold Hughes , hendrick, bogle and Lowe plus got a bit of compo for Delap and Gordon . That easily has covered £2.5 m for   Last few seasons , plus we have several others who would fetch a few million more . 
 
£300 k to keep it going for another three months is neither here nor there. 

And we drew both games against boro so no obvious advantage gained . In any case even if boro had finished on the play offs what would that have brought them . 
 
thr proper test anyway is what if Derby hadn’t broken the rules  ( as alleged) . They allegedly overspent by £4million up to 2017/18.. what advantage did that give them in 2018/19? Marginal at best .. in fact if we hadn’t wasted money we would have been in a better place now.
 
boro’s case would be stronger against the Efl who had they acted sooner could have deducted points and given boro a play off place. But arguably Efl should have acted much sooner and the overspending would never have happened .

And we drew both games against boro so no obvious advantage gained . In any case even if boro had finished on the play offs what would that have brought them . 
 
thr proper test anyway is what if Derby hadn’t broken the rules  ( as alleged) . They allegedly overspent by £4million up to 2017/18.. what advantage did that give them in 2018/19? Marginal at best .. in fact if we hadn’t wasted money we would have been in a better place now.
 
boro’s case would be stronger against the Efl who had they acted sooner could have deducted points and given boro a play off place. But arguably Efl should have acted much sooner and the overspending would never have happened .

And we drew both games against boro so no obvious advantage gained . In any case even if boro had finished on the play offs what would that have brought them . 
 
thr proper test anyway is what if Derby hadn’t broken the rules  ( as alleged) . They allegedly overspent by £4million up to 2017/18.. what advantage did that give them in 2018/19? Marginal at best .. in fact if we hadn’t wasted money we would have been in a better place now.
 
boro’s case would be stronger against the Efl who had they acted sooner could have deducted points and given boro a play off place. But arguably Efl should have acted much sooner and the overspending would never have happened .

The difference is that say if Top Shop or Debenhams go bust, it's because fewer people are visiting their stores. Derby still have a loyal fan base, so cutting off that revenue makes no sense to HMRC. 
Players moving on is all very well, (although some will become free agents or drop in salary at best) but there will be reduction in football revenues to the tune of around £30 million if Derby went bust, and replacing Derby with Chesterfield or whoever ain't going to replace that.  HMRC would lose out in perpetuity. What is 130 years of existence times £30 million? About £4 billion. Take 40% of that and that is £1.6 billion..  that is how much HMRC will lose if Derby go into liquidation.  It would be pigheaded, self righteous and foolish beyond imagination for HMRC to do that. 

The Daily Fail article is up to their usual standard. Mixing up “:secured creditors” with “ preferred creditors” , mixing up market value with asset values, referring to an HMRC bail out (nobody is expecting HMRC ago pay any money into the club) . oh and then there are all those anonymous sources. 
 
If Sunderland were sold for £30 million that will reflect the club’s assets and their debts. Of course Derby’s market value is likely to be less than that, that is why they are in administration. Insolvency means the market value would be nothing .
 
but comparing market value with debts is just very misleading. 

The Daily Fail article is up to their usual standard. Mixing up “:secured creditors” with “ preferred creditors” , mixing up market value with asset values, referring to an HMRC bail out (nobody is expecting HMRC ago pay any money into the club) . oh and then there are all those anonymous sources. 
 
If Sunderland were sold for £30 million that will reflect the club’s assets and their debts. Of course Derby’s market value is likely to be less than that, that is why they are in administration. Insolvency means the market value would be nothing .
 
but comparing market value with debts is just very misleading. 

And yet despite everything, the EFL seem to be only too willing to increase the likelihood of liquidation by piling on the highest points deduction they can get, without seemingly taking any account of all the "reasonable doubt" that they are even right about their opinion that FRS has even been breeched at all. On top of that the Club has been punished by delay, by Covid, by embargo, by the draconian measures around squad size and wage caps.........all of this is being ignored in the pursuit of making an example of one Club, at the behest(in part) of the Chairman of another Club.
In addition, although as we all know, other Clubs have been able to "cut a deal" with HMRC, but under new rules, DCFC will be denied this option, BUT STILL, the EFL will not budge......even though Parry himself has already recognised, that amortisation should not be taken into account in P and S calculations, BUT still they plough on.....
Is it any wonder, that as a Club, we feel just slightly persecuted?

A pint of "amortise" please.

That’s a change across the board isn’t it, not specific to football clubs.