Has the transfer embargo been lifted?

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Get out of embargo and he shouldn't need to provide proof of funding, just like all other clubs not in an embargo.

It's a lot for us common folk, but it's nothing for a Championship footballer. A bottom 3 wage bill is usually £10-12m, equivalent to 23 players on £8.5-10k pw.
We need to recruit players for our first 11 on wages up to £4.5k, whilst the average bottom 3 player will be on two times that figure. Clubs with a top 12 wage bill pay their players an average of £30k pw (assuming 23 players). Puts a bit of perspective on things, doesn't it?

Yeah but how long will it take to get out of embargo all together (there must be an Airplane joke there somewhere!)?

The wages that have been set by the EFL also have the potential to cause disharmony in the squad when we are able to offer more - perhaps our trialists would have been better off with their weekly wage if they'd waited? No wonder Curtis had a grimace when he signed!

[Ghost of Clough]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

Yeah but how long will it take to get out of embargo all together (there must be an Airplane joke there somewhere!)?

The wages that have been set by the EFL also have the potential to cause disharmony in the squad when we are able to offer more - perhaps our trialists would have been better off with their weekly wage if they'd waited? No wonder Curtis had a grimace when he signed!

When the accounts and P&S calcs are submitted (latest 18th August) AND when the HMRC bill is paid.

Presumably they're happy with the wages they're on, otherwise they wouldn't have signed, hence Jagielka not signing before Stearman. There's nothing to stop us offering them new deals once we're out of embargo. 

[cheron85]

18 minutes ago, Spanish said:

he can inject anything he wants to as long as it is capitalised and not a loan.  He may still owe us for the stadium and can repay that anytime he wants to .

That wasn't my understanding of it - Otherwise how would he not have been able to do that for years now? I thought the regulations were that an owner had an upper limit to the amount they could put in to balance the books?

13 minutes ago, U.M. said:

I doubt the HMRC debt has anything to do with the current accounts. We don’t make a profit and have many millions of brought forward tax losses if we did.

It is much more likely to be VAT and PAYE.

Wouldn't that payment also factor into the accounts we submit though? 

I appreciate the sources aren't exactly 100% reliable but the impression I've got from Coles and Nixon is that HMRC have told the club they need to wait until they know the exact amount to pay - Which is tied into the club accounts and the EFLs decisions in some way

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Presumably they're happy with the wages they're on, otherwise they wouldn't have signed, hence Jagielka not signing before Stearman. There's nothing to stop us offering them new deals once we're out of embargo. 

That was one of the posts (on this thread?) a day or so ago. What was to stop us offering new deals when we're out of embargo. 

I'm not sure that Curtis was happy with his contract, he said he signed because we needed him (paraphrase).

[Spanish]

25 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

That wasn't my understanding of it - Otherwise how would he not have been able to do that for years now? I thought the regulations were that an owner had an upper limit to the amount they could put in to balance the books?

Wouldn't that payment also factor into the accounts we submit though? 

I appreciate the sources aren't exactly 100% reliable but the impression I've got from Coles and Nixon is that HMRC have told the club they need to wait until they know the exact amount to pay - Which is tied into the club accounts and the EFLs decisions in some way

this is the only ref I can see in respect of owner funding

1.1.13 Secure Funding means funds which have been or will be made available to the Club in an amount equal to or in excess of any Cash Losses which the Club has made in respect of the period from T-2 or is forecast to make up to the end of T+2. Secure Funding may not be a loan and shall consist of:

(a)  contributions that an equity participant has made by way of payments for shares through the Club’s share capital account or share premium reserve account; or

(b)  an irrevocable commitment by an equity participant to make future payments for shares through the Club’s share capital account or share premium reserve account. This irrevocable commitment shall be evidenced by a legally binding agreement between the Club and the equity participant and may if the Executive so requires be secured by one of the following:

(i)  a personal guarantee from the ultimate beneficial owner of the Club, provided that the Executive is satisfied that

1)  he is of sufficient standing; and

2)  the terms of the guarantee are satisfactory;

(ii)  a guarantee from the Club’s Parent Undertaking or another company in the Club’s Group, provided that the Executive is satisfied that

1)  the guaranteeing company is of sufficient standing; and

2)  the terms of the guarantee are satisfactory;

(iii)  a letter of credit from a Financial Institution of sufficient standing and an undertaking from the Club’s directors to The League to call on the letter of credit in default of the payments from the equity participant being made;

(iv)  payments into an escrow account, to be paid to the Club on terms satisfactory to the Executive; or

(v)  such other form of security as the Executive considers satisfactory; or

(c)  such other form of secure funding as the Executive considers satisfactory.

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, cheron85 said:

That wasn't my understanding of it - Otherwise how would he not have been able to do that for years now? I thought the regulations were that an owner had an upper limit to the amount they could put in to balance the books?

Wouldn't that payment also factor into the accounts we submit though? 

I appreciate the sources aren't exactly 100% reliable but the impression I've got from Coles and Nixon is that HMRC have told the club they need to wait until they know the exact amount to pay - Which is tied into the club accounts and the EFLs decisions in some way

He can put in as much as he wants, but still needs to comply with P&S (or suffer the consequences of overspending)

[CBRammette]

1 hour ago, cheron85 said:

That wasn't my understanding of it - Otherwise how would he not have been able to do that for years now? I thought the regulations were that an owner had an upper limit to the amount they could put in to balance the books?

Wouldn't that payment also factor into the accounts we submit though? 

I appreciate the sources aren't exactly 100% reliable but the impression I've got from Coles and Nixon is that HMRC have told the club they need to wait until they know the exact amount to pay - Which is tied into the club accounts and the EFLs decisions in some way

Hmrc always encourage payment on account or settle before final figure sorted. It usually also stops interest (at hmrc's rate) and some penalties accruing and you get a sticker for being good taxpayer. Have never known them say no dont pay until the final amount known 

[cheron85]

2 hours ago, Spanish said:

this is the only ref I can see in respect of owner funding

Just deleted the notes for the sake of keeping my post a little shorter

From what I can tell - A person can put money in providing they are buying shares in the club 

Morris owns (as far as I know) 100% of the shares in the club - So he can't put money in that way

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

He can put in as much as he wants, but still needs to comply with P&S (or suffer the consequences of overspending)

But don't the P&S regulations specify how much an owner can put in? I thought it specified an annual amount the owner is allowed to cover losses by?

1 hour ago, CBRammette said:

Hmrc always encourage payment on account or settle before final figure sorted. It usually also stops interest (at hmrc's rate) and some penalties accruing and you get a sticker for being good taxpayer. Have never known them say no dont pay until the final amount known 

I dunno - I can't find the post about it now but I'm 90% certain (but getting less so by the minute) it's what Nixon said 

[Spanish]

17 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Just deleted the notes for the sake of keeping my post a little shorter

From what I can tell - A person can put money in providing they are buying shares in the club 

Morris owns (as far as I know) 100% of the shares in the club - So he can't put money in that way

But don't the P&S regulations specify how much an owner can put in? I thought it specified an annual amount the owner is allowed to cover losses by?

I dunno - I can't find the post about it now but I'm 90% certain (but getting less so by the minute) it's what Nixon said 

you can increase shareholdings whenever you want to.

[Ghost of Clough]

19 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Just deleted the notes for the sake of keeping my post a little shorter

From what I can tell - A person can put money in providing they are buying shares in the club 

Morris owns (as far as I know) 100% of the shares in the club - So he can't put money in that way

But don't the P&S regulations specify how much an owner can put in? I thought it specified an annual amount the owner is allowed to cover losses by?

I dunno - I can't find the post about it now but I'm 90% certain (but getting less so by the minute) it's what Nixon said 

Yes. This is where the £39m over 3 years comes from.
It is actually £15m unless the owner wants to inject equity to cover losses (increasing it to £39m)

[CBRammette]

48 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Just deleted the notes for the sake of keeping my post a little shorter

From what I can tell - A person can put money in providing they are buying shares in the club 

Morris owns (as far as I know) 100% of the shares in the club - So he can't put money in that way

But don't the P&S regulations specify how much an owner can put in? I thought it specified an annual amount the owner is allowed to cover losses by?

I dunno - I can't find the post about it now but I'm 90% certain (but getting less so by the minute) it's what Nixon said 

Ah Nixon that well known Chartered Tax Adviser!

[cheron85]

41 minutes ago, Spanish said:

you can increase shareholdings whenever you want to.

Yeh I get that but how does it tally with the below

38 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Yes. This is where the £39m over 3 years comes from.
It is actually £15m unless the owner wants to inject equity to cover losses (increasing it to £39m)

This is what I thought too - So how would Morris be able to put any more in?

He'd need to know what our P&S position for the last few years to understand if we're within the limits and he could therefore put more money in?

10 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

Ah Nixon that well known Chartered Tax Adviser!

I'm not suggesting he knows accounts - But he's the only one who has actually referenced any information regarding what the HMRC payment actually is - Everyone on here is just saying "Well it must be PAYE, that's the only logical explanation" with absolutely zero information to support that assertion

I don't see very much logic going on anywhere with these dealings at the moment - Not sure why any would have been applied here either

[CBRammette]

44 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Yeh I get that but how does it tally with the below

This is what I thought too - So how would Morris be able to put any more in?

He'd need to know what our P&S position for the last few years to understand if we're within the limits and he could therefore put more money in?

I'm not suggesting he knows accounts - But he's the only one who has actually referenced any information regarding what the HMRC payment actually is - Everyone on here is just saying "Well it must be PAYE, that's the only logical explanation" with absolutely zero information to support that assertion

I don't see very much logic going on anywhere with these dealings at the moment - Not sure why any would have been applied here either

Yes re logic. I really cant believe what a shambles absolutely everything is off the pitch. Very very sad