Derby County Administration (with the slight possibility of Liquidation still there)

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

Again, why end up with very little as opposed to a percentage of the debt and income going forward?

The HMRC won’t want to be seen as letting Derby off. 
 

We need to hope as fans it can all be sorted .

I was amazed that the administrator said he’s 95 percent sure Derby will survive .

I hope the optimism is not a false hope that’s all. 

Obviously they are in the best position to know. 
 

 

[atherstoneram]

25 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

The club do not owe £8 million to Arsenal. Cocu has agreed reduced settlement I believe. Not all Hmrc debt is preferred creditor status. 
 

Non preferred creditors are likely to take a 25% agreement which should reduce debt by £15 million or more . Even preferred creditors may need to take a hit or risk getting nothing.

then we have PPS to throw in the mix . That would be part of the sale I believe .

Msd loan on PPS then becomes part of overall settlement with Msd.

new owners bring in a mixture of debt and equity financing to restore Company balance sheet and liquidity. Player sales are still likely in January but hopefully not a fire sale.

that is how I see is wriggling out of it.

 

For the HMRC to come to an agreement there are a number of conditions which have to be satisfied.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/366661/vas-factsheet_1_.pdf

It is not just a case of saying we will offer you 25%.

One that stands out in the "Voting against a commercial offer" is full reasons as to past non-payment of tax.

[GboroRam]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Again, why end up with very little as opposed to a percentage of the debt and income going forward?

So everyone knows HMRC don't mess about, and to pay up all your share of the pie.

If HMRC get a reputation as a soft touch, they stand to lose more than if they make an example of the first club that looks like it'll not fulfil it's tax obligations.

[atherstoneram]

5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Not many nightclubs have 100,000 followers or have been going for 130 years.

How many have been going to matches,struggling to make 20,000 that's the figures the HMRC will be interested in

[Reggie Greenwood]

18 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Over optimistic on installments I’d say .

Would you want to pay 28 Million in installments along with all the other debt .

Gone up by 8 million in a week or so must be a massive  interest rate. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by Reggie Greenwood
Added rate which I’d missed off

[Crewton]

43 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I also stand to be corrected but I believe the only difference between a fixed and a floating charge is that, as the name suggests, any assets with a fixed charge will always be fixed and cannot be disposed of or changed without the lenders consent. The best example is property. Assets with a floating charge over them can change without the lenders consent thus allowing them to trade without constantly having to obtain the lenders consent. Good example being debtors. So, when a lender takes a mortgage debenture over a companies assets, some assets will have a fixed charge over them (e.g. property, plant and machinery) whereas others (e.g. cash and debtors) will have a floating charge over them. Either way, the lender with those fixed or floating charges still has first call on them. 

That's how I remember it from when I dealt with such things working for a bank many years ago. 

That sounds right. I guess the determinant will be what assets are defined as fixed in the debenture agreement. Players are an interesting one - you'd assume "floating" but what does the debenture say? 

[RoyMac5]

23 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

So everyone knows HMRC don't mess about, and to pay up all your share of the pie.

If HMRC get a reputation as a soft touch, they stand to lose more than if they make an example of the first club that looks like it'll not fulfil it's tax obligations.

Is that a proven method of collecting tax then?

As a tax payer I prefer them to accept something rather than next to nothing.

[atherstoneram]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Is that a proven method of collecting tax then?

As a tax payer I prefer them to accept something rather than next to nothing.

I'd prefer not to pay any but i have to pay in full.

[atherstoneram]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Is that a proven method of collecting tax then?

As a tax payer I prefer them to accept something rather than next to nothing.

As a tax payer i would like to see the club pay what they owe.

[GboroRam]

6 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Is that a proven method of collecting tax then?

As a tax payer I prefer them to accept something rather than next to nothing.

As a tax payer I'd rather not invite lots of businesses to think they can shirk their responsibilities. 

Honestly I think a lot of it will be down to the attitude of the business towards their debts. If the tax man thinks we're pulling a fast one I'm sure they'll be much less likely to meet us half way.

[StarterForTen]

We have to remember that the role of HMRC is a revenue gatherer and they will always seek to bring in what they are owed, or as much of it as is possible. They are not the police or the judiciary; they don't seek to 'make examples' of failed businesses. They aren't even (overtly) political.

They will only ever move to liquidate a business if that was the only way of recouping more of the debt owed, so with a heavily indebted business with restricted asset value that doesn't look to be a very good option for them.

Of course, they won't just roll over. I suspect they will be the last injured party to yield and may well push this well into January to put pressure on a buyer who will be eyeing the Transfer window closing.

[PistoldPete]

43 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

For the HMRC to come to an agreement there are a number of conditions which have to be satisfied.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/366661/vas-factsheet_1_.pdf

It is not just a case of saying we will offer you 25%.

One that stands out in the "Voting against a commercial offer" is full reasons as to past non-payment of tax.

COVID. Next question?

[RadioactiveWaste]

Could the players become crown property?

"In exciting transfer news, Tom Lawrence of Derby county is to become prince Andrew, whilst prince Andrew has been transferred to the federal justice system of the USA"

"When asked about the new signing, Head coach Liz Sachs-Coberg said "with his attitude to alcohol, driving and taking shots that really aren't on, he's perfect for one's team."

[Jourdan]

What worries me is the sheer number of creditors we have and the absence of a viable solution. Even a fire sale of first team players would achieve very little in terms of servicing the debt. Do we have a group of players worth anywhere near £60 million? Not even close, especially in the current financial climate.

I am struggling to see a way out. A takeover is months away.

We might be able to strike a deal with one or two creditors, but I highly doubt every creditor we have will be so sympathetic to our plight. Then of course, as time goes on, our liabilities will only increase and new creditors will appear, especially if we can't secure a loan for the day to day operations of the club.

Will we have a club a year from now? The way it is looking, the administrators will never have to buy a pint in a Derby pub ever again if that can be achieved.

 

[Crewton]

I'm going to be completely honest now and say that I'd rather DCFC survived than the taxpayer/Government get every penny they're owed. Let them chase the people responsible for the balance - they're good at that, particularly if those people don't have the resources to fight them, or manage to scoot off to another jurisdiction that doesn't have extradition agreements in place with the UK, which happens regularly. 

(That last bit might be tongue in cheek) 

Edited October 6, 2021 by Crewton

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

The only readily realisable assets are the players .. and even that would only be possible come January. 
 

The club has other assets , the academy players, the leases on the stadium and the training ground but these are only of value to a football club as a going concern. 

but by far the most valuable asset the club has is its fan base … that doesn’t appear in the balance sheet , and again is only of value if the club continues in its present form.

 

You can actually sell players at any time but they can’t be registered to play apart from a transfer window 

[Sparkle]

44 minutes ago, Crewton said:

That sounds right. I guess the determinant will be what assets are defined as fixed in the debenture agreement. Players are an interesting one - you'd assume "floating" but what does the debenture say? 

Apparently you can’t put a value on players otherwise we wouldn’t be in this mess 

[Boycie]

2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

Let them have him back for what’s still outstanding.

[Foreveram]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Not many nightclubs have 100,000 followers or have been going for 130 years.

Stringfellows ??‍♂️

[atherstoneram]

26 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

COVID. Next question?

You can't keep blaming COVID, other teams aren't in administration,how about MEL MORRIS