Jump to content

Has the transfer embargo been lifted?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RamsFan10 said:

As in Buchanan would be more likely to attract offers or Rooney would rather keep Forsyth? Agree with the former but I'm fairly sure Buchanan is Rooney's first choice now, evident on sunday that he was playing really high up in a change of system from last year. Forsyth doesn't have the capacity for that (or much else to be honest).

I think we'd quite easily shift Fozzy. If we were selling him to open another space on the squad, we'd surely accept a dramatically reduced fee. I'm sure a league one, SPL or even league two team may pick him up. 

Yeh Buchanan more likely to attract offers but given the choice most fans would choose Forsyth to be sold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

The rules allow for exemptions for extreme circumstances though, and that clearly and obviously applies in this case, so we've not bent the rules at all.  They aren't going to ban us from using our own youth players.

There’s no doubt that the EFL had it within their gift to stick to the rules in place so by that they have been lenient and bent them slightly. That doesn’t mean we were lucky or they haven’t done the right thing, they have, without question, of course.

However I’m pretty damn sure that it will get right up their noses if those players we have demonstrated to them that were far from justifiably being worthy of ‘professional standing’ at that time suddenly start popping up on our subs benches or appearing in cup games just a few weeks later.

The EFL didn’t just turn nice on us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the HMRC related embargo relates to our Accounts submission then hopefully all the embargoes are removed when we submit our accounts which will be mid August at the latest so we should hopefully have 2 weeks to bring players in before the transfer window shuts

Edited by DCFC1388
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

Yeh Buchanan more likely to attract offers but given the choice most fans would choose Forsyth to be sold

I think that may get us enough to buy nobody to be honest. A free transfer would give an extra wage if we come out of embargo I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

If the HMRC related embargo relates to our Accounts submission then hopefully all the embargoes are removed when we submit our accounts which will be mid August at the latest so we should hopefully have 2 weeks to bring players in before the transfer window shuts

I cannot honestly know if and how the club owe money to HMRC.  Do we owe money or was it late payment of tax/NIC back in December. Is there a payment plan in place? Would this payment plan be jeopardised by resubmission of accounts ?  Would it actually do us a favour and additional yearly losses would reduce the liability?  It may be we have agreement with HMRC to clear any reduced liability once accounts are resubmitted.  Might even be a refund for those years but increased liability in later ones.  I suspect the bit in bold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ravabeerbelly said:

No is the simple answer. A contract is a contract and can be terminated by mutual consent or following gross misconduct. The end!

Not that it matters, but for the record you could pay up the contract in full. Others brighter than you and me though might know if that is the end or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

I cannot honestly know if and how the club owe money to HMRC.  Do we owe money or was it late payment of tax/NIC back in December. Is there a payment plan in place? Would this payment plan be jeopardised by resubmission of accounts ?  Would it actually do us a favour and additional yearly losses would reduce the liability?  It may be we have agreement with HMRC to clear any reduced liability once accounts are resubmitted.  Might even be a refund for those years but increased liability in later ones.  I suspect the bit in bold. 

HMRC has nothing to do with accounts submission, you fill in a company tax return every year to show what you owe for corporation tax which given the well publicised losses will be zero.

Regarding PAYE/NI and VAT to HMRC those submissions are made monthly for PAYE and quarterly for VAT, if you do not submit them you will have a tax inspector knocking on the front door with more powers than the police& MI5, so they will have been submitted and  payment plans agreed, if you miss an instalment they would cancel the agreement and issue winding up orders. FWIW there is no way the club owes £20 million, HMRC would never have let outstanding payments balloon to that amount without legal action/seizure of assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jono said:

I reckon you’re right. Accountants, Gibson and the EFL (because he challenged them over TV rights … all stitched us up 

That's reminds me of the bit in the film The Shawshank Redemption when Tim Robbins gets asked why he killed his wife and he says he didn't and then Morgan Freeman replies you'll fit in well here....as everyone he then asks says didn't do it lawyer screwed me......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

That's reminds me of the bit in the film The Shawshank Redemption when Tim Robbins gets asked why he killed his wife and he says he didn't and then Morgan Freeman replies you'll fit in well here....as everyone he then asks says didn't do it lawyer screwed me......

Not sure what your point is ? If it’s that Mel shouldn’t have trusted his accountants then perhaps you have a point.  If on the other hand you imply that somehow  the EFL hasn’t got an agenda for very specific reasons beyond a rule book, then we must agree to differ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

Not that it matters, but for the record you could pay up the contract in full. Others brighter than you and me though might know if that is the end or not.

You can only pay up what is mutually agreeable. If the player doesn’t accept the pay off you cannot just cancel a contract. As I said earlier it’s more than just wages involved financially and you’re really not looking at the more complex picture….

Some of those young players are still Scholars so how would you value their education that comes as part of the clubs commitment to them?

By cancelling contracts we’d also be waiving all rights to compensation at any time if and when they go on to be a success elsewhere. That’ll only take one player to make it at another big club and that’s potentially the sort of money that finances the academy for 10 years ala Jude Bellingham. 

As you say, not that it matters because there is no way it’ll be happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jono said:

Not sure what your point is ? If it’s that Mel shouldn’t have trusted his accountants then perhaps you have a point.  If on the other hand you imply that somehow  the EFL hasn’t got an agenda for very specific reasons beyond a rule book, then we must agree to differ. 

I like the film and your quote reminded me of that particular passage in it. 

Nothing more complex than that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ravabeerbelly said:

Who on earth is paying money for two young lads in this climate? And you want to bring in players of questionable fitness abs value on wages four times the size of these two who bay actually be decent and have sell on value? 

Glad you’re not in charge!!!

if we are going to free up space it’ll be at the expense of someone we can get a large fee for that’ll help on all fronts!

Ill be shocked we don’t sell Sibs or Knight 

So you don't understand the word nominal.

You then ask, rhetorically I presume, who is going to pay money for young lads in this climate...before suggesting we keep them to for their sell in value. Then proceed to suggest we will sell two youngsters for large fees. 

You also then suggest I would bring in players of questionable value and fitness when I didn't actually name anyone.

Read a post properly before you go off the deep end. 

Let me be very clear....neither Hutchinson or Watson will ever be worth more than the difference in income between Championship and League One. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Charlotte Ram said:

HMRC has nothing to do with accounts submission, you fill in a company tax return every year to show what you owe for corporation tax which given the well publicised losses will be zero.

Regarding PAYE/NI and VAT to HMRC those submissions are made monthly for PAYE and quarterly for VAT, if you do not submit them you will have a tax inspector knocking on the front door with more powers than the police& MI5, so they will have been submitted and  payment plans agreed, if you miss an instalment they would cancel the agreement and issue winding up orders. FWIW there is no way the club owes £20 million, HMRC would never have let outstanding payments balloon to that amount without legal action/seizure of assets.

Could it be the gain on the stadium?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, gccrowdpleaser said:

So you don't understand the word nominal.

Yes. A small fee. No one is paying any money for either of these two players in this climate. How many more times do I need to say this….in this situation NO ONE is taking the players off ours hands that we want to lose or feel able to do without or are surplus! For a player to leave there needs to be a club who want to take them…at this moment in time no one will take either of them. If we are to lose anyone it will be players who hold value right now and players no doubt you wouldnt want to lose….that’s the way the world works…If you see value in having them chances are so do others…if you don’t see the value in having them chances are neither does anyone else!

8 hours ago, gccrowdpleaser said:

You then ask, rhetorically I presume, who is going to pay money for young lads in this climate...before suggesting we keep them to for their sell in value. Then proceed to suggest we will sell two youngsters for large fees. 

The climate changes. Right now people aren’t taking gambles and buying players (even for nominal fees) on the chance that they may be worth something in the future. Bear in mind they will only be worth something if someone plays them! Every other club already has players in their academies that they feel equally sure that they will one day be worth something they don’t need to take ours and extend their risk…..

I also didn’t suggest we ‘will’ sell for large fees I said they ‘may’ be decent and worth sell on fees later.

8 hours ago, gccrowdpleaser said:

You also then suggest I would bring in players of questionable value and fitness when I didn't actually name anyone.

 

Working off freebies and loans we will unquestionably we shopping in the basket that says ‘questionable’ or ‘gamble’. Tell which of the 7 we are currently assessing that aren’t in some from or other questionable in terms of their fitness, form, attitude, longevity, fitness risk or value as an asset beyond this season?

8 hours ago, gccrowdpleaser said:

Read a post properly before you go off the deep end. 

I did. Try it. 

8 hours ago, gccrowdpleaser said:

Let me be very clear....neither Hutchinson or Watson will ever be worth more than the difference in income between Championship and League One. 

I get that. But also keeping either of them instead of trading them in and exchanging them will never be the reason we end up in league 1. I’ll try again……if anyone leaves it’ll most likely be that the staff feel that either a Hutchinson or a Watson (or a Kornell, or a Festy, or a Thompson) are capable of doing a similar job to a similar level as another player in a similar position who holds financial value right now and generates interest from another club.

This is two fold as they will try to not weaken the playing staff dramatically while also helping the financial situation in the short term which could clear an embargo and give us a shot at shopping again in January. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/07/2021 at 00:55, Ken Tram said:

What is the number of players in "Professional Standing" without including the Chorley Cup game.

It seems unfair - or challengeable - because we fielded that team against our will. We would not have played them if our first team had been allowed to play. 

It feels like a double whammy.

I posted this in the "Training Photos" thread - so I've added it to the Embargo thread.

I am going to pretend that my post was the catalyst!

Maybe the Derby leadership read all of the stuff that we write! (Maybe that's why we are in a pickle? lol!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.