The Baron

9 hours ago, Steve Buckley’s Dog said:

I forbid this man to like The Smiths.

I once met Johnny Marr at a party!

On 06/07/2022 at 16:39, Crewton said:

That's not what @The Baroninferred. He reckoned DC may have paid something between £60-65M for the club and stadium. That suggests £38-43M for the club, thus £30-38M to HMRC, unsecured creditors and MSD for the further loans.

I was told the price paid by two sources, they could of course have heard it themselves the same source. When the administrator report is published will find out more, if Quantuma say it’s due to be out ‘immediately’ then stand by your beds next Easter given their track record. 

On 24/06/2022 at 08:57, BucksRam said:

Have to say there's been one or two "new" posters on here recently who I've wondered at their real identities from their comments. Always interesting to know if there's any more "higher profile" peeps here, aka Mel and Maguire. For the record, I'm a nobody ?

For the record, so am I. 

On 28/06/2022 at 07:51, G STAR RAM said:

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-takeover-david-clowes-7261769.amp

@The Baronwhere does the price of £22m come from please, I'm assuming from Land Registry records?

Hi, It was an estimate based on comparing the debt capitalised at Gellaw NewCo less the original figure, ties in with comments I’d heard from other places. The balance came to exactly £22m. Could be some tax issues too outstanding.

27 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

Just listened to Talk Derby to Me podcast - excellent summary. Just wondering after the dramatic weekend if @The Baronstill as optimistic of the outcome of this for us and what/with whom it might be?

My gut reaction is that there will be a successful outcome. There are other parties out there with money, and can transfer it ASAP if a price is agreed. That price may not be sufficient to avoid a penalty for coming out of administration and paying unsecured creditors the threshold amounts, or ensure that Morris can avoid paying anything to MSD under his PG though. 
 

A new owner isn’t buying much, real estate assets are excluded, relatively few player registrations, and those that exist of low value, and a share in the EFL. Therefore any value is based on future cash flows, which tend to be negative, especially in the Championship. 

3 hours ago, I know nuffin said:

I wonder who told Mel because he is no accountant so someone must have suggested it and he went with it . 

It wasn’t Stephen Pearce or Morris who came up with the idea.

38 minutes ago, TooFarInToTurnRed said:

From gov.co.uk:

”You need to report your gain by 31 December in the tax year after you made the gain. For example, if you made a gain in the 2021 to 2022 tax year, you need to report it by 31 December 2022.” 
 

So a sale in June 2018 would not need reporting until 31 December 2019. 

Hi,

That’s when you would report the gain to the tax authorities, it’s reported in the accounts in the year in which the gain is reported under the accruals principle.

1 hour ago, curb said:

Could you point us to the paragraph in FRS 102 that says our amortisation policy was in breach of it as opposed to a straight line policy?

Ive scanned through it and couldn’t find anything, but then it’s over 400 pages, so I could have missed it.

Hi, here’s the amortisation for intangibles as requested. 

25 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

So why did he do it ...? 

Because somebody asked me a question. 

21 minutes ago, LazloW said:

He isn’t ‘the’ baddie, he’s ‘one of’ the baddies ?

...and if it wasn't for you pesky kids I would have gotten away with it. 

1 minute ago, CBRammette said:

Yes so he is the go to media specialist and my post was really to acknowledge that he's spent ages in this rabbit warren today and he didnt have to

I’m not sure how I’ve made a decent living out of this. Never ask for money from broadcasters (Radio Derby did send me £20 at the end of last year though), all the book royalties have gone to charity, I’ve worked on projects for DCMS in relation to the Fan Led Review unpaid and the profits we made from the live podcast show in Wimbledon were given to the Rochdale defence fund in relation to a hostile takeover of the club. 

10 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

a brief explanation

the policy is one thing thing, the notes to the accounts are another

it was the notes to the accounts that were described as 'at best confusing ... ' 

Before the IDC we copped it for the notes.  The policy was found to be within frs 102

The policy is part of the notes. 

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Bury had a winding up order from HMRC over a £50k tax bill. The winding up order really says nothing about the size of the debt at the time.

There's no significant liability in the DCFC accounts in 2018, which was when the stadium sold, and the last set of accounts published before Morris decided to break the law and stop publishing accounts. 

5 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

yes it's a shameful aspect of our recent history. I think MM just went from potential sale to potential sale thinking: the new owners will clear the arrears. Probably encouraged by his erstwhile mate, Samuelson. And the hole just got bigger and bigger, as the sale process was bungled and re-bungled   

Then he woke up one morning and thought: well, the fans are against me, Gibbo has me over a barrel and he has the EFL running scared. So far it's cost me 200 big ones. You know what, I'm just not putting any more in.  

As for Samuelson, thoroughly unpleasant individual. 

2 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

Think you have answered that yourself. Auditing is to pick up confusing and misleading things especially when do e by the governing body. They of all people cannot afford to get it wrong

They fail to spot issues regularly though, just look at all the accounting/financial scandals over the years for far bigger companies than DCFC. 

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

£29m is what has been run up in total to date, we know this as it is in the administrators update.

You said that we already owed significant sums to HMRC before Covid, I am looking for clarification on the amount and how you are privvy to such information?

Because HMRC issued a winding up order in January 2020, they would not have done that for a trivial sum. 

3 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

But as you have said many times our wage bill was massive. So for 15 months of the pandemic we had no income from the fans  yet were clocking up a massive PAYE tax and NI bill... which Morris wasnt paying obviously as he had decided not to fund the club anymore.    The question you were asked which you are still dodging is how much of that big tax bill had accrued prior to COVID. I think the answer is very little of it had accrued prior to COVID.
 

If Morris had decided to not fund the club anymore that is one thing, he could have put the club into administration far earlier. For him to use the taxpayer as a means of funding it instead does not reflect well on him IMO. 

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

But as you have said many times our wage bill was massive. So for 15 months of the pandemic we had no income from the fans  yet were clocking up a massive PAYE tax and NI bill... which Morris wasnt paying obviously as he had decided not to fund the club anymore.    The question you were asked which you are still dodging is how much of that big tax bill had accrued prior to COVID. I think the answer is very little of it had accrued prior to COVID.
 

Fair enough, you think one thing, I think another. Would HMRC have applied for a winding up order in January if 'very little' tax was owed though? 

2 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

The accounts were audited. At the same time the auditors were audited themselves by their governing body. If the governing body found them to be within frs 102 isn't that a clue that it was allowed

You're assuming that the accounting policy, described as 'at best confusing, at worst seriously misleading' was picked up by the inspection. 

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

@The Baronnot sure if you missed my post.

Would you mind clarifying what the 'significant sums' were please?

Was it just PAYE or other taxes as well?

All taxes. Morris had racked up a £29m total tax creditor when he put the club into administration, over £10m higher than the next largest tax creditor in the Championship. 

11 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Point of information about being allowed to sell our stadium as we did.

Rick Parry said the EFL had to align with Premier League policy on Stadium sales or they would not receive Premier League money or something to that effect. 
Therefore selling our stadium to ourselves was perfectly ok so why all the fuss at the time. 
We were cleared and other clubs like Stoke have now done the same. 

As part of the deal the EFL agreed with the PL in relation to solidarity payments being a fixed % of PL distributions, the EFL agreed to a raft of measures, including adopting PL P&S rules to replace FFP (and accept EPPP, which is dreadful for EFL clubs in my opinion). Under PL P&S rules it was acceptable from 2016 onwards to allow profits from asset sales to be included in the calculations, which is presumably why Birmingham , Derby, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday and Villa did it almost immediately, and Stoke did it last May, just before the rule was changed following an EFL club vote. 

13 minutes ago, jono said:

First of all I wonder if they have ever enforced a financial punishment ? And then once you’re in the PL is a championship level sanction just petty cash rendering the punishment meaningless ? 

It is is a huge minefield though isn’t it ? I kind of agree there should be a statute of limitations on the these things. Is it 7 years for tax offences ?  Yet when you think of Boro and Wycombe’s stance and their ability to make that stance effectively via threats to the witless, cowardly and inept governing body  ? 
The issue is further muddied by Parachute payments. What “competition and fair play” is there when up to 9 relegated teams could be in receipt of payments of a scale that make a mockery of FFP at championship level. We may end up “catching” those that drop down but they are insulated from the real fallout of any punishment by virtue of a wad of cash, for 3 years, that is vastly more than the total annual revenue of a mid table championship club.  Can it really be true that the promoted cannon fodder from the championship doesn’t have relegation clauses in contracts after all this time ? And if not, why not ? 
 

Here’s one wine infected suggestion from me

Spend what you want on transfers if your owner is rich enough .. good luck

You'd need a system to stop clubs under the same ownership playing smart arse though. .. tricky ! 

Wages .. agreed percentage of turnover. 

Turnover .. There are only so many Ethiads or owners to sponsor stadiums and shirts, for bonkers fees and not very many in the second tier. If a rare benefactor wants to splurge then let them as long as it’s fresh money

No parachute payments .. regulation to insert compulsory relegation clauses in contracts: total wages available to be stated as equivalent of the highest earning existing championship club  .. Just as you have to accept terms and conditions in most jobs, it’s common sense. Prem solidarity money to be distributed pro rata on league position with a bonus for reaching the playoffs.

There is no fair play as it stands now - as the repeating league tables and yo-yo’s testify, so why bother with anything other than the most basic of rules.

Premier League has enforced financial punishments in relation to Leicester, (Plucky Little) Bournemouth and Fulham. 

1 minute ago, glyn1957 said:

Hi Baron, if DCFC were owned by a top European club and they paid 12 million for a player from  DCFC that everyone  in football knew was not worth more than a couple of million the EFL and other clubs would not be shouting foul foul from the rooftops about over inflation of the players value ??.

Probably, they certainly did when Barcelona and Juventus swapped Arthur and Pjanic for €70m and €58m respectively for players who could best be described as ‘bang average’

8 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

But as FRS 102 by your admission is/was open to interpretation means that at the time Derby used the method they did it wasn't against the rules merely a different interpretation. If the EFL, at your prompting, wanted to make a rule, which they now have, surely retrospective introduction of a new rule and then punishment based on that rule is just plain wrong. 

To me FRS 102 is pretty unequivocal on the issue. I did not prompt the EFL to make a rule, they rejected my letter, and I also worked with the DCFC defence team in relation to the charges

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Would be interested to know where you got this information from. 

No accounts were filed after June 2018 and Covid struck in March 2020?

Agreed. There was a winding up order from HMRC in January 2020, which is pre-Covid.