atherstoneram

32 minutes ago, jono said:

Which won’t happen because if that happens the HMRC will get little or nothing. HMRC don’t care (and nor should they) whether we get another points deduction. They want dosh .. nothing else. 
 

My concern as a fan is to avoid the -15 because that will mean league 2 in all likelihood. I could stomach relegation but having accepted that as a sad outcome of the EFL’s poisonous management of its rule book .. The kick while you’re down and “fighting against the odds again” scenario would be sickening., wrong, and unjust. 
 

Sad thing is .. I can see it coming. We will get -15 next season regardless. It’s what they do. Sport ? Fair Play ? Decency ? Proportionate ? The EFL is nasty, vindictive, hypocritical, self serving, pompous, ineffective, weak, self serving and … pretty effing useless all things considered. 
 

Well that’s me off to a good start after my red card and free holiday granted by @David and @GboroRam  I probably deserved it but I was thinking more along the lines of Monaco, St Tropez or Sardinia. I ended up in Skegness ! Don’t do it …ever ! … jeez… Parry and Gibson still selling ice creams though .. I wanted a 99 but they only did -21’s and offered Frizz free perm vouchers for the ladies at a local salon. The chipboard in the Chalet had blown, it was damp and cold. “En suite shower” ? Stand I. The rain outside you’re own front door .. ! Nice !
There wasn’t anyone there either, except some chancer bloke from High Wycombe putting foreign coins in the slot machines while slipping security free pints to security to turn a blind eye. The beer was a bit like that story about the similarity of Ansels  Bitter and making love in a punt .. both ducking close to water.  Anyway I’ll keep my mouth shut in future and try and stay off the politics thread. 
 

 

Did you expect the same treatment as Lawrence and off to somewhere hot?

42 minutes ago, Boycie said:

If you think we’ll find out more tomorrow then that’s being deluded.

They'll just say the same words just in a different order, or find some new ones from the Thesaurus in the study.

The've been and bought a new one,the old one was a bit dog eared with pages missing.

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Wigan were liquidated and only paid unsecured creditors including Hmrc 25%. They didn’t suffer any further penalties from EFL apart from the original 12 point penalty for going into admin and even that they contested. 
 

I don’t see that Hmrc preferred creditor status ( which they didn’t have at the time of Wigan) should really affect things . Provided we pay unsecured creditors 25% Efl should not punish us anymore .

Wigan were not liquidated,the club changed ownership and then the original company went into liquidation.At no time ever were Wigan FC liquidated.

2 minutes ago, Crewton said:

The last thing I'm going to say on the subject of HMRC debt is that I can see the argument for saying that HMRC will not compromise on receiving 100& of what they are due, but I believe they will. I'm sure everyone is rooting for me ?

I as much as anyone else on here want the club to survive,i am not being a WUM but i just can't see where the money is coming from to sort out all the debt.The days of picking a club up on the cheap has gone as i see it.

Just now, Tamworthram said:

Oh dear. So we're the test case which could be bad.

Having said that, the rule changes only moved HMRC above other trade creditors didn't it? It didn't change their ranking compared to football creditors did it? Have I got that wrong?

You are correct,football creditors come First but it meant that HMRC can demand 100%.

Now things have changed it seems liquidation is more likely than previous if new bidders aren't prepared to take the vast majority of debt on.

Just now, Tamworthram said:

Maybe some of us are just saying they "may" accept a lesser amount rather than they "will". In liquidation, after the administrator has been paid as well as football and secured creditors there isn't going to be much left for HMRC.

So they could say we are insolvent and issue a winding up order.

1 minute ago, Tamworthram said:

I thought I had read that the rules had been changed to give HMRC priority over other creditors but still behind football creditors. HMRC still aren't happy that it could mean football creditors get 100% whilst they have to accept less but, I could well be wrong. Have there been any cases since the rules were changed or are we the First?

We are the First.

3 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Maybe you wouldn't accept 25% but who know what, if anything less than 100% they would accept?

Only HMRC know but for everyone saying HMRC will accept what they are offered maybe living in hope.

2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Surely they’ll “be bothered” if it means they get less?

They may still decide to issue a warning to other clubs and allow Derby to go into liquidation rather than accept more by way of a CVA but it will bother them and won’t be an easy decision depending on how much they are being offered of course.

I haven't seen any other clubs offering support with our plight and it has now been raised in parliament,how do you think other owners will react if we were only to pay 25%. They will be getting on to their MP's wanting to know why HMRC have not pushed for the full amount as the rules have been changed specifically to prevent that. We have Several MP's backing us but that leaves over 640,many of whom have EFL clubs in their constituencies,what happens if they start raising the matter with HMRC. They won't give way to save the club if the majority complain. It became political when the issue was raised in parliament.

6 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

It won’t be as the MPs indicated 

MP's cant do a thing about it even though they like to think they can,they are just paying lip service to be seen as doing their best.

3 hours ago, ram59 said:

It's nothing to do with them being able to pay their bills, it's about them being able to pay their bills whilst staying within their financial plan agreed with the EFL. A lot depends on whether there was any pay off for the old manager and how much they're paying Ince senior and his assistant. 

Of course it's all about paying the bills and they must be staying within the agreed plan otherwise the EFL would have imposed more sanctions.

3 hours ago, Sparkle said:

Yet that is what they are not going to get - more of a concern to the HMRC should be the the 100% towards football creditors which they should be stopping from happening 

No,that should be more of a concern to the EFL if HMRC want 100%

3 hours ago, GenBr said:

Sorry - i can't believe you actually believe this. We've had a 21 point deduction this season and we've been under transfer embargo for years now - all bids will have been made under the assumption that we will be a league 1 team next year.

As i've said before the division we are in makes no difference to the value of the bids. The bidders aren't paying for the club as such - they are just paying off debts and they'll the minimum required regardless of what division we're in.

The administrators sole concern is to get as much money as possible to pay back to the creditors. They will accept the highest bid. They certainly won't be stringing it out to the end of the season just because they've secured funding in the bizarre hope that a new higher bid will magically appear. 

Its up to HMRC what they want to do, but theres nothing to say they have to accept the full payment up front. They could agree for it to be paid off over time.

If nothing is agreed then they get nothing at all - we dont own pride park, we dont own moor farm and we'll have about 6 players under contract at the end of the season, so they're not going to get anything from us selling assets off.

I'm not referring to the administrators but bidders,if we go down then the bidders would have a real problem.A CVA, if we can get one, will be easier to pay than one if we are relegated due to the amount of expected income.

3 hours ago, Crewton said:

That article is three years old, and is trying to second guess what the rule change means in practical terms. It isn't, in fact, a victory over the Football Creditors rule, since FCs must still be paid in full if a club wishes to exit Administration without further penalty, whilst every other class of creditor is 'free' to negotiate (albeit minority unsecured creditors have little power to decide). HMRC's response to their new status still hasn't been tested, due to the government moritorium on winding up orders during Covid. So everyone claiming that HMRC are going to play hardball are speculating, no more than that, as far as I can see. 

We will find out in time.

3 hours ago, RipleyRich said:

Not my interpretation from what I have read:

https://www.morton-fraser.com/insights/hmrc-fc-1-v-0-football-creditors-fc

I would have thought insolvency practitioners are more aware of proceedings than lawyers.

3 hours ago, Oldben said:

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/chris-kirchner-preston-derby-county-23313908

A reminder again of the Kirchner bid for Derby, that our administrators failed to capitalise on.

The reason might have been the middlesbrough/wycombe craziness but who knows.

Kirchner went public with his interest in the purchase of the Rams before withdrawing from the process in December 2021, writing in a statement: "Two weeks ago, I made a formal offer to buy the club. I believe I presented a very detailed, generous and ambitious long-term sustainable business plan. It included purchasing the stadium, future funding and maintaining the academy’s status. We improved that offer further today."

Since pulling out of the deal to buy the club, the American has sent several tweets with regards to the situation at Derby and how things unfolded.

One read: "Not misled at all… knew the rough structure. That wasn’t the problem. Problem is overall price, complexity with debts from previous owner (Mel Morris), and the stadium doesn’t make it any easier.”

The club might have been in a different position had this brought a close to the behaviour of the efl towards us.

I see nothing in his statement about paying any bills/money to creditors.

3 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

HMRC wanted preferred bidder status so that they are treated more favourably than unsecured creditors. They can still only get paid what is available from the bids that have come in. 

And if the funds aren't available they may well say no deal,no use keep saying they will accept what is offered, you have to remember they don't have to. If the bidders think the club is of value then they have the option to pay in full or walk away.

4 hours ago, Crewton said:

HMRC aren't getting all of their money whatever happens. No-one is going to pay that much and liquidation will give them far less than 25%. They have a decision to make when the PB is appointed. 

On the stadium, there's already an agreement in place, a long term lease, for the club to rent it from Morris' company for £1.25M a season, which covers this EFL requirement you mention (which I've never heard of before, but sounds plausible). 

The HMRC have probably already made a decision and informed the administrators which is why we can't announce a preferred bidder.

3 hours ago, rammieib said:

I think you have missed the point.

£28M - Cost to settle debts whether you're in Championship or League One.

So by that virtue - the bidder is paying £0 for the club ownership whether its in the Premier League or League One. So future income is irrelevant against the amount they are bidding for the club - because the offers are £0.

If maybe its a case of saying that a bidder will pay £20m for the Stadium if its a Champ Club or £10m if its in League One then that might make a little bit more sense. However - unless all offers are structured like that, the Admins should be making a decision on the now element, not constantly delaying the future security of the club.

If any bidders don't agree to pay HMRC there is no future.

3 hours ago, Sparkle said:

Yet that is what they are not going to get - more of a concern to the HMRC should be the the 100% towards football creditors which they should be stopping from happening 

So if they don't get it,it could be liquidation.

3 hours ago, GenBr said:

Sorry - i can't believe you actually believe this. We've had a 21 point deduction this season and we've been under transfer embargo for years now - all bids will have been made under the assumption that we will be a league 1 team next year.

As i've said before the division we are in makes no difference to the value of the bids. The bidders aren't paying for the club as such - they are just paying off debts and they'll the minimum required regardless of what division we're in.

The administrators sole concern is to get as much money as possible to pay back to the creditors. They will accept the highest bid. They certainly won't be stringing it out to the end of the season just because they've secured funding in the bizarre hope that a new higher bid will magically appear. 

Its up to HMRC what they want to do, but theres nothing to say they have to accept the full payment up front. They could agree for it to be paid off over time.

If nothing is agreed then they get nothing at all - we dont own pride park, we dont own moor farm and we'll have about 6 players under contract at the end of the season, so they're not going to get anything from us selling assets off.

I'm not saying they are stringing it out but as you say we have no real assets and a number of players out of contract at the end of the season who then don't belong to the club so HMRC might be of the opinion there is no way they will get any money back anyway.

3 hours ago, Crewton said:

HMRC aren't getting all of their money whatever happens. No-one is going to pay that much and liquidation will give them far less than 25%. They have a decision to make when the PB is appointed. 

On the stadium, there's already an agreement in place, a long term lease, for the club to rent it from Morris' company for £1.25M a season, which covers this EFL requirement you mention (which I've never heard of before, but sounds plausible). 

People keep going on that HMRC will get less if the club goes into liquidation,that won't bother HMRC, if the club wants to survive then they will have to pay all they owe. The bidders will be fully aware of that. The HMRC may come to some arrangement regarding a payment plan but it will be on their terms not the bidders.

38 minutes ago, RipleyRich said:

What I want to know is, where is the £28m to settle the debts coming from?

As far as I am aware that just about covers HMRC, who do not have to accept 25p in the £

https://www.quantuma.com/insights/rescuing-football-clubs-thing-past

 

 

 

That might make some think again who keep saying HMRC will accept 25% of what is owed. If they are entitled to the full amount that is what they will want.

8 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

Yes but they risk the buyers walking by stalling.big risk

I don't think it's the administrators who are stalling,i think the bidders are expecting the administrators selling the club now as a league 1 club and have put in derisory offers to match which doesn't go anywhere near enough to settle the bills, that wouldn't be acceptable to the administrators who have managed to arrange funds to see the season out. If we go down i can see the potential bidders walking away especially Ashley who won't get the television coverage a championship club gets.

3 hours ago, B4ev6is said:

I think you will find actually will be on sky more than not.

Not if we get relegated.