Geoff Parkstone

11 minutes ago, Archied said:

Sorry jimbo but your totaly failing to make your point ,, Morris owned derby lock stock and barrel, he held total power to run it ( run it down ) however he decided and nobody had the power to stop him , he even did away with having any kind of a proper functioning board , derby county football club are every bit the victim to this man as the creditors ,, it’s a point the EFL could well do with recognising too along with other clubs and other clubs fans

THE EFL definitely has to take us as an example to rethink their approach to football club governance and perhaps seek to impose a need for non executive representation on the club boards to in some way control the excesses of owners.  Perhaps non exec Chairmen would be a good idea?

45 minutes ago, BuckoBeast said:

So could today be the day we could get liquidated 

I doubt it could be done that quickly unless all the papers have been made ready to petition the courts - which would suggest that Q knew for a while it would all fall apart

2 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

?We’re bigger than you, we’re bigger than youuuuuu, even our training ground is bigger than you!!!?

"Very Good", except we quite probably don't even have a ground, let alone a training ground

5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Noon is noon even if you are in north or south. Unless you are in North Dakota or something. 

Noon is still noon even if you are in North Dakota, its just not noon in the UK at the same time as you experience it in Bismarck or even Perre

26 minutes ago, IronRam 140.6 said:

Couldn't  a scrap value only apply to a balance sheet. Like a disposal bonus a £10 million contract write down over 5 years ending in say a free agent but 500k  as a positive entry on a balance sheet??? An offset for value provided to the business or something like that. 

As you were ikechi anya ??

No

2 hours ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

No, the players income tax was collected by Derby but it wasn’t paid to HMRC by Derby. the responsibility lies with Derby

 

yes but I have known cases where, if HMRC do not collect in full, they have gone after the employee to pay again

1 hour ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

Have a look in the.. The Football Creditor rule is explicit, simple, and solves all of Derby's issues thread

HMRC is not defined as a Football Creditor under the Articles of Associated 

"48         FOOTBALL CREDITORS
48.1      Where a Member Club defaults in making any payment due to any of the following persons, 
the Member  Club ('Defaulting  Club')  shall be subject to such penalty  as the Board may decide 
and subject also to Article 48.2:

48.1.1        The League, The FA Premier League and the Football Association;
48.1.2        any of the Pension Schemes;
48.1.3        any Member Club and any Club of The FA Premier League;
48.1.4        any holding company  of The League and any subsidiary  company  of that holding 
company;
48.1.5        any sums due to any full-time employee or former full-time employee of the Member 
Club by  way  of arrears  of remuneration  up to the date on which that contract  of employment is 
terminated. This excludes for these purposes all and any claims for redundancy,   unfair   or  
wrongful   dismissal   or  other   claims   arising   out   of  the termination  of  the  contract  
or  in  respect  of  any  period  after  the  actual  date  of termination;
48.1.6        any  sums  due  to  the  Professional  Footballers  Association  in  repayment  of  
an interest  free loan together with such reasonable  administration and legal costs as have been 
approved by the Board;
48.1.7        The Football Foundation;
48.1.8        The Football Conference Limited trading as "the National League";
48.1.9        The Northern Premier League Limited;
48.1.1O      The Isthmian League Limited;
48.1.11      The Southern League Limited;
48.1.12      Any member club of the League or organisations listed in Articles 48.1.8 to 48.1.11 
inclusive;
48.1.13      Any County Football Association affiliated to The Football Association; and
48.1.14      Any Leagues  affiliated to The Football Association  and any clubs affiliated to any 
County Football Association recognised by The Football Association.

48.2      Subject to the provisions of Articles 48.3 and 48.4, the Board shall apply any sums 
standing to the  credit  of  the  Pool  Account  which  would  otherwise  be  payable  to  a  
Defaulting  Club,  in discharging  the  creditors  in Article  48.1.  As  between  the Football  
Creditors,  the  priority  for payment shall be in accordance with the order in which those 
Football Creditors are listed in Article 48.1.

48.3      If,  having  discharged  all Football  Creditors  in  any  preceding  class  of  Football 
 Creditor  (as
· required by Article 48.2) the sum then available is not suffident to discharge in full the 
Football Creditors listed in Articles 48.1.1, 48.1.2 or 48.1.4 the Board will decide the 
allocation.

48.4      If,  having  discharged  all Football  Creditors  in  any  preceding  class  of  Football 
 Creditor  (as required by Article 48.2) the sum then available is not sufficient to discharge in 
full the Football Creditors listed in Article 48.1.3, 48.1.5, 48.1.12, 48.1.13 or 48.1.14 the sum 
will be allocated pro rata amongst the creditors of the same class.

Note - Clubs are reminded that any assignment of future entitlements from the pool account are 
subject to Article 45 and this must be brought to the attention of the other party. Furthermore 
assignments must be in legal form and registered with the office. Assignments are given priority 
according to the date and time of registration."

So if HMRC goes after any player whose PAYE has not been handed over in full (which I understand can happen) then that player can claim the amounts unpaid to HMRC as unpaid gross wages under 48.1.5?  A sort of subrogated claim?

Lust 

5 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

You click on the 3 dots top right of your post but can only do for limited time. Hopefully it may provide some light relief while waiting!

Shame nobody can cast any light on the original question though, but rather prefer to point out my typo

5 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

You are naive if you think having the words lust, bugger and legs in a sentence on here without editing it will  not end in tears (unless all too stressed out)

not sure I know how to edit posts!

Just a thought, and apologies if its been debated elsewhere in this gargantuan thread, but if Middlesbro and Wycombe can allege football creditor status for their somewhat spurious claims, then surely HMRC can claim football creditor status as well, on the basis that the amounts owing under PAYE (not the VAT or CT aspects) is in effect part of the players' gross wages.  These amounts have been deducted from the players wages (and other non playing staff) - except for the ERNI element - for settlement to HMRC, so is there an argument that a big chunk of HMRC's £ 28m is football related?

Lust a thought, but it would completely bugger everything up if it has legs

4 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Vengeance the same that was used against us 

This is fast becoming like one of those all too rare occasions when the missus suggests an early night, and, no matter how hard you try, no conclusion can be reached.  Except of course there are only two parties in that bed instead of between 5 and 10 to satisfy in this one.  The other difference is that in the former circumstances you roll over and go to sleep, leaving her to her own devices.  With DCFC that isn't an option and it goes on and on until one party or the other dies....... while the ever running cameras of the EFL film it all but do bugger all else.. 

5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

They used “systematic cheating” in their statement, so it’s hard to reconcile that with just one transfer.  The complaint was always that our overspending allowed us to beat them to sign Waghorn etc, but that overspending still comes down to either the amortisation issue (which we’ve been punished for) or some other reason (which we haven’t been found guilty of).

In all fairness, they should be paying us compensation because we saved them from acquiring Waghorn 

For what it's worth I believe the MSD debt is not a debt if DCFC but a debt of one of the Gellaws.  It is secured against the stadium and also the DCFC assets and potentially I guess MM personally.

It's shown this way as the debt could crystallise against DCFC assets but is not an explicit liability of DCFC.  In that way it is a limiting factor on the value of the assets secured, and thus available to football and general creditors.

Were the primary debt cleared, eg MSD take control of the stadium, the DCFC asset impairment would go away.

However this may not be the case with further MSD funding since that statement of affairs was drawn up.

But I agree it's far from transparent, but what else would you expect!

2 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Interesting development, but not sure how paying ‘full asking price’ and £28m as also being reported actually equate?  What will £28m (buy or) repay?

Clearly not buying the stadium (at this stage) which will make their offer slightly problematic for the Administrators, as to how they deal with MSD and Morris. It seems to me all of the MSD debt is with the football club, so how much of the £28m Binnie monies might go to MSD I wonder? Relatively small amount I would guess which would leave MSD needing to recover the shortfall from Morris/Gellaw under the third party security they hold. Presumably they would have to appoint a receiver to take possession of the stadium unless Morris repays the debt from other funds.

Can someone remind me the %’s that are applicable in terms of repayments to creditors if we are to avoid and additional -15 points penalty. I know it has to be 100% football creditors, but what about everyone else? It would be terribly helpful if someone could also remind me what the breakdown was a few months back in £m’s as to what we owe to Secured Creditors (MSD), Preferential Creditors (HMRC), Football Creditors and Unsecured Creditors?

Its on the companies house website

34 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

So that's £28m to cover HMRC/other creditors, and then they presumably pay Morris £20m for the stadium which clears the MSD debt?  *If* that's the case, it sounds pretty good to me.

Or leave the stadium as is, leaving MSD with the stadium and the £1m annual return yielding 5% on cost

10 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Dell and MSD don't want less money so some of it can be given to Gibson? What a shocking stance. I'm blown away a financial lender would take that view.

MSD wont give a damn, they have a fixed charge over the ground to cover their 20m and probably other security from MM personally.  With a ground worth £81m to cover them - well OK, maybe £ 40m - they shouldn't care what happens.  But HMRC will since anything for an unproven creditor cuts into their payput 

14 minutes ago, secretsquirrel said:

I do also believe the stadium is a problem as i think MM wants to upthe price by adding his debt to MSD to the £20million price .

Lads, lads, lets not forget that the stadium is worth £ 80 million because an esteemed valuer said so.  So buy it back for £ 20m from Mel, sell it for $ 80m to an independent third party, bung Boro and Wycombe £ 10 million and use the remaining £ 50m to clear the debt and recapitalise.

9 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

At this point I think I'd genuinely rather see us liquidated than give Gibson and Coughig a penny. Might not be a popular approach, but if it brings about the demise of the EFL and precipitates a massive bubble bursting from underneath them then good. Let it all burn.

I sadly find myself agreeing with that.  If it takes the demise of our club to bring about fair and independent regulation and a proper framework for financial fair play - with no capability for vexatious legal action by parties who believe they particularly suffered from breaches - then so be it.  I don't want to pay that price, but football in the round needs a radical overhaul in so many ways, if only so that Derby Phenix can find itself in a better place when it returns to this level.

13 hours ago, Ellafella said:

@Carl Saganis a time traveller; he can dial back to yesterday and get Mel to look at this post “tomorrow” ? ie today or “imminently”. Certainly in the next/last 24 hours. 

Thats a bit of an extreme covid test?

I admire your optimism David, but cant help but agree with simmo.  The conflicts of interest within the EFL may pull them down in the eyes of those wanting to introduce proper and fair regulation into football, but we could be the victim to prove that point

On 04/12/2021 at 22:04, PistoldPete said:

Maybe all your taxes are deducted fronm your salary so you don't have a choice. ANd maybe the Government didn't tell you to stop earning anything.. but still expect you to pay wages to your staff and their taxes...  out of thin air.

This does raise the interesting question of whether DCFC claimed furlough money for non footballing staff, used this to pay them their net wages, having deducted their taxes ' NI and then didn't pay over those deductions even though the government had, largely, given us up to 80% of the gross pay.

Anyone see this report on Christopher Samuelson (one time Derventio director with "the Sheik") and attempts to sell the club last autumn

Makes fascinating reading and doesn't exactly show DCFC ownership in a great light

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2021/8/10/how-convicted-criminal-can-buy-famous-english-football-club-launder-money

23 hours ago, Sheikh n Bake said:

Had the same issues at Liverpool and claimed he should be in their first team! Hopefully I'm proved wrong, but I reckon he'll continue to sit on the fringes of the U23s until he finds his level on the bench in League Two.

Whilst still playing with the Rams probably...

Leaving the way clear for Rooney's triumphal return to Everton...

We can dream!

Leaving the opportunity for the Rams to pick up Zidane

2 hours ago, BucksRam said:

Agree, although slightly tongue in cheek, it wasn't a complete pipe dream to be honest.  

So I can evaluate, what letter is this poll referencing?