atherstoneram

Just now, S8TY said:

Also some out of contract players are being denied oppurtunity to earn a few quid until end of season by not being allowed to sign for us 

there is no way the EFl have helped us …Mel got us in this mess but he’s gone …EFL should be helping us but putting out statements that they are “disappointed” that we won our case was showing there true colours and they are bit fit for purpose 

They are not going to let us sign out of contract players while the administrators are trying to get the finances under control.

50 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

@Curtains I respect you too much not to explain what I meant. I posted it earlier but you may have missed it.

I don't care about the EFL; they are not fit for purpose. The sooner they are replaced the better for football.

What I was agreeing with was the condemnation of the poor communication from the Administrators. A simple 5 minute update each week would be enough - just to the employees and supporters of the club. They are not even updating Rooney - according to Rooney!

Surely, you do not agree with that approach.

Is there a reason they are not updating Rooney. In December he stated that he had been told he would be able to sign 7 or 8 players well that didn't happen.Was he told that in confidence to be kept to himself until it actually happened or was he told he might be able to sign that number of players. Rooney doesn't have to be kept in form of developments, he is in charge of the First team and to pick the players for the match. The administrators are in charge of everything else including the academy players,which is why we have seen some sold.

1 hour ago, Ram a lamb a ding dong said:

Oh but I do. An investor wants the best deal.

The seller (in this case MM and Q) need to get what they can. If a buyer will not go beyond a certain limit then the sellers need to go down plan b  which in this case is MM lowering his price.

A buyer can walk away and tbf if it were I, that would have happened ages ago. EFL et al have had a massive hand in screwing us over but untimely Q are supposed to be a professional outfit who can cut through the noise. I use the word supposed as that is exactly how I see them.

I have absolute zero confidence in them getting this whole process resolved to the satisfaction if us fans.

I fully expect relegation, -15 pts next season, top youngsters leave for free.

Rooney may stay but bloody hell if he does he will be reveered until the end of time

 

It won't bother the administrators one little bit whether it's resolved to the satisfaction of the fans or not. 

2 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

As much as I want Mike Ashley to take over, Appleby made it known weeks and weeks ago that his team were waiting for the go ahead and were raring to go..

If that's the case why the hell haven't they just been named PB and we would probably be way down the line with this.

 

They might have been raring to go from their point of view but the administrators may not have been in a position at that time to accept their bid.

Just now, Foreveram said:

I predict that will not end well.

I foresee something terrible happening to her.

9 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It is their job to collect as much tax as possible. Each case will also be handled on a case-by-case basis.

HMRC will not be a hold-up.

But as some are hinting at, the preferred bidder offers less than 25% and take a -15 point hit next season,the HMRC might well be there to collect taxes but there is no way they would accept that. That would go down like a lead balloon in parliament  especially at this time when peoples NIC rises next month. The general public are already against the rise and when they found out the club only paid 20% or whatever what they owed MP's would be ducked as to give an answer. MP's are more concerned about retaining support of their constituents not losing it.

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

Hoskin was pretty categorical, telling Chris Coles that HMRC recognised the club is a ‘community asset’ and that he was confident that they would be pragmatic 

That's what i don't get,how can it be a "community asset" when it's owned by an individual?

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

Who is going to break it to him about Princess Diana? ?

Why,what's wrong with her?

28 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

They'll be looking to get as much as possible. Given the circumstances, it's pretty much take the offer of 25% or get nothing when liquidated.

That might not bother them £30M is hardly anything to them and they could be wanting to prove a point as to why they altered the rules,a warning shot to other clubs to pay up or end up like DCFC. To the men in the ministry we are just some football club in the midlands who we owe money to.

2 hours ago, Crewton said:

The above paragraph is what made me think you were suggesting they wouldn't do a deal. We're possibly about to find out what their position is at any rate. Allot of the more belligerent oppo fans are counting on HMRC not accepting a % of the tax owed. I'd prefer it if a new owner did pay off all the club's debts, but I know that isn't going to happen and HMRC know that too. 

I know we are not going to pay 100% but i think to prove a point that HMRC won't accept 25% but will accept somewhere around the 35-40% mark,they can then say the preferred creditor status works and they have got more money than they would have previously.

Just now, PistoldPete said:

No. There are no unpaid wages.

At least that's something.

When we were in the throws of the pandemic a number of players including Rooney deferred part of their salary to help the club out,did MM reimburse them before he put the club into administration or is that more debt added to the football creditor list.

6 minutes ago, RAM1966 said:

Rooney had no say in the matter, he said no players would be sold, so did Admin for that matter, but they lied

 Just like there latest statement, working for a deal that secures the long term future fir the club, its a lie.  Admin has one aim legally and that's to secure the best deal they can for the creditors, regardless of whether the business survives or not. 

In this case its difficult to seeva scenario where a sale would not be more advantageous than liquidation though, as the only saleable assets are the players as we do not own the ground.  We also have several players running out of contract in the summer which are worthless, they all become worthless as our golden share willbe removed the second we liquidate, so thats unrealistic.

-15 points though I think will be where we are starting.....  Great job Admin, should never of accepted the -9....

That's the administrators job, to get the best deal they can for the creditors with the possibility of selling the club as a going concern with a long term future. If there are no buyers for the club because of the amount of debt that is not their fault.

As for selling Plange i don't think they lied to Rooney,the administrators have total control of the club apart from the First team and the team which the manager puts out. When he was sold he was on the periphery of breaking into the First team and had been named on the bench a few times so it's debatable as to whether he would be classed as a First team player such as Lawrence,i.e  still an academy player on his contract.

8 hours ago, Crewton said:

I think you're getting confused between HMRC's failed attempt to get the Football Creditors rule declared illegal and the 2020 Finance Act which made them Preferential Creditors again. The stated aim was to ensure "more" of the tax owing was paid to HMRC by insolvent businesses than under the previous law. Nowhere does it say "all". If they'd intended it to be all, they wouldn't have excluded taxes owed directly by the company to HMRC. 

I'll be ASTONISHED if HMRC insist on recovering 100% of the collected taxes owing to them. That isn't the intent of the change. 

I don't think i said 100% but they will be looking for more than 25%.

1 minute ago, Crewton said:

It affects all companies in Administration, not just football clubs. 

I agree but they changed the rules for a reason regarding clubs in administration,when they changed the rules it was specific to football.

Just now, Crewton said:

It still doesn't change the fact that, if Derby get liquidated, HMRC/NHS will get nothing. 

And it doesn't change the fact the government changed the rules for a reason, no doubt they would have been fully aware that clubs could be liquidated because of the change.

7 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Is there a shortage of buses all of a sudden? 

I wouldn't know,i haven't been on one for years.

3 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

They didnt seem too worried about the billions of covid fraud which I would say is more of an issue as without that prob wouldnt even need a rise. HMRC make settlements all the time

They do but it was the government who forced through the rule change regarding HMRC and clubs in administration as they weren't prepared to accept the amounts they were receiving before the change.

1 minute ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Not the NHS, it’s for care generally isn’t it….

That is what the Chancellor ordered HMRC to do.

3 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

This may just be Mike doing the Ashley dance that he performs at the closure of every deal he negotiates - 'In-out, in-out, shake-it-all- about' which he sings until he is satisfied that he has squeezed the best deal possible and then he makes his mind up. If he is still interested at this stage, as has been suggested, it's my bet that he wants it and what he wants he usually gets unless the asking price is ridiculous. The fact that he's allegedly still on the dance floor makes me think he wants it and just needs to waltz around Q and twist Mel one more time before he starts the jive with the Derby Fans.

I still think HMRC will be the stumbling block. NIC rise in April and the Chancellor today has ordered HMRC to inform every company to print on payslips the rise is to pay for the NHS. I can't see them accepting 25% and i think certain people in government are watching developments closely as they won't want to be seen raising NI then letting the club pay only a % of the amount owed as politicians and the general public will start asking questions.

2 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Only funds that go directly to MSD. 

Are you sure about that? not that i am questioning your post. MM has said that he will sell the ground for £20M is that additional to the loans made by MSD against the ground. I haven't seen anything confirming things one way or the other unless  i have missed something.

1 hour ago, LERam said:

You should take a look in my mirror, it shows me 15 years older than I actually look

No it doesn't,it's just you thinking it does.

3 hours ago, angieram said:

Of course, their pocket is funded through our collective pockets so it really doesn't matter if they do. I suspect though that each club is given so many schmoozing places at away venues and vice versa. Is Jack O'Connell more deserving of that experience than Lisa or Rachel or B4, who spend every penny of their spare money following their club?

And why if he has got time isn't Andrew Hoskin standing in the cramped terrace with the rest of us finding out what supporting a club is really about?

Steve, you want to hear what my gang of mainly female home and awayers think of this whole process.

Wherever we look  there are affluent men with all the power and influence playing out their roles in our saga (owners, administrators, EFL) with an arrogant complacency about their absolute rights and abilities to be the ones to do so. No matter what happens to clubs and communities, they roll on through to their next appointments. 

We are collectively very sceptical of all of them  and whatever happens to us, we need to change the way that football 'business' is conducted. It stinks of corrupt power.

No matter what we hope will happen fans don't stand a chance of getting football "business" changed. It is a business not a sport anymore or more like a sport in name only. There will be a lot of talk and proposals to do this and that making it look as if an effort is being made but while fans keep forking out for season tickets,match day tickets,club merch etc nothing will happen.People keep moaning about how fans are being treated but they keep turning up week after week.

Yes, you are going to reply with we support the team,that doesn't matter to owners/directors,while fans are doing that they will seem no need to change anything.

4 hours ago, Wolfie20 said:

Who else would you expect to appoint them???

I thought MSD requested administrators be appointed.

2 hours ago, kingsy1884 said:

I am not advacating it and i fully expect the EFL or another club to do us over but if it looks like we are going down is it worth trying to go for -15 this season and not really pay the creditors the full amount?

If we don't pay at least 25% the -15 applies to next season not this.