Alan Nixon Breaks Silence on American Billionaire Bid

[Mucker1884]

2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

You’ve misread my point. As I understand it, the club don’t need to “buy” them from Middlesbrough. They could simply return any unsold tickets on a sale or return basis.

Are any clubs still letting us take tickets on tick?  ?‍♂️

#morefoolthem!  ?

[AGR]

6 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

You’ve misread my point. As I understand it, the club don’t need to “buy” them from Middlesbrough. They could simply return any unsold tickets on a sale or return basis.

Yeah but if we don't buy any in the first place it saves us the stamp money for returning them ?

[Foreveram]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

I don’t think you’re correct. If nobody bought the tickets Derby could just return them:

34.2.2    Clubs are required to sell tickets for their away matches if required to do so by the Home Club and similarly Home Clubs are required to supply tickets for their Home Matches to the Away Club for sale by the Away Club to its supporters if so requested by the Away Club.  These tickets are to be made available on a sale or return basis and must be ordered by the Away Club at least five weeks before the League Match to which they relate.  The Home Club must deliver those tickets to the Away Club at the latest four weeks before the League Match to which they relate.  Where any match is arranged at shorter notice the above steps shall be taken as soon as is reasonably practicable.  Visiting Supporters should also have the same opportunity to take advantage of pre-booking discounts that apply to home supporters.

So Derby should already have tickets for Stoke and Reading 

[Foreveram]

1 hour ago, AGR said:

Supporters groups could let the club know in advance that we are going to boycott to save them buying so many in advance

Which supporters groups are you referring to, I don’t need you to speak for me, I will be going and supporting the team.

[B4ev6is]

Dont you see by not going that is what gibson wants to happen by going you showing Derby county our support and also show him that we shall not be dived and also if say 3k outside riverside stadium protesting against trying make club go bust.

[AGR]

39 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

Which supporters groups are you referring to, I don’t need you to speak for me, I will be going and supporting the team.

It was a hypothetical suggestion mate, chill out

[kevinhectoring]

8 hours ago, WestLondonRam said:

Surely if Boro are going after us now, we should be doing the same to QPR correct? 

Only if we want to pay QPR’s legal fees 

[I know nuffin]

4 hours ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

This is disgraceful. A lot of ill feeling towards DCFC though so I think a lot of uninformed people will be thinking Boro and Wycombe should be going for Derby. Only had to read the none sense on the Bristol board to see how strangely people can perceive things. 

Read the comments in the DM. Many thing going into liquidation will give the taxman more. When I say many it really should be most. They must have started teaching stupid since I left school.

[CornwallRam]

4 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

Read the comments in the DM. Many thing going into liquidation will give the taxman more. When I say many it really should be most. They must have started teaching stupid since I left school.

Depends what they mean. Clearly a CVA would give HMRC at least 25% of what they're owed, whilst liquidation would be far lower, maybe even zero after the administrators and Dell get their cash. 

However, liquidation would focus the minds of every club owner on settling their tax bills, so in the long run, HMRC might end up with more.

[PistoldPete]

14 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Depends what they mean. Clearly a CVA would give HMRC at least 25% of what they're owed, whilst liquidation would be far lower, maybe even zero after the administrators and Dell get their cash. 

However, liquidation would focus the minds of every club owner on settling their tax bills, so in the long run, HMRC might end up with more.

But it’s not just the tax they are owed , it’s also also the future tax they lose if the club goes into liquidation… which is actually far higher than the amount owed. 

and it’s not the club owner being punished. So the idea that club owners might behave differently is pretty unlikely . 

[atherstoneram]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

But it’s not just the tax they are owed , it’s also also the future tax they lose if the club goes into liquidation… which is actually far higher than the amount owed. 

and it’s not the club owner being punished. So the idea that club owners might behave differently is pretty unlikely . 

It is the here and now HMRC will be concerned with not future predictions.

[Yani P]

[Kathcairns]

5 hours ago, B4ev6is said:

Yes they would be cause Derby have to buy them.

Why do Derby have to buy them.

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, atherstoneram said:

It is the here and now HMRC will be concerned with not future predictions.

Its not a prediction. If there is no club you get no revenue. so no tax.

[atherstoneram]

28 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Its not a prediction. If there is no club you get no revenue. so no tax.

But you quoted that the HMRC would get tax in future which would be far higher than the amount owed,that could take years if at all.

If we survive into League 1 that means less taxes - lower wages, possibly less supporters,less revenue from advertisers,less income from TV rights,not a very attractive proposition but as i said the HMRC will only be interested in the here and now.

[PistoldPete]

22 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

But you quoted that the HMRC would get tax in future which would be far higher than the amount owed,that could take years if at all.

If we survive into League 1 that means less taxes - lower wages, possibly less supporters,less revenue from advertisers,less income from TV rights,not a very attractive proposition but as i said the HMRC will only be interested in the here and now.

If we are relegated to League 1 , (almost certain)  that will mean less revenue and less spending for the club. The big bonanza years for HMRc will be over, sure . Wages are capped at 60% of income.

But our income will be around £15 million, so that is still about £9m in wages. HMRC take about 50% of that so that's £4.5 million. Then there is VAT and other spending etc. Probably around £6 milion a year in revenue for HMRC even for Derby in league One.   Why is that an unattractive proposition for HMRC? They would be complete fools to kiss goodbye to that, leave alone whatever the best p in the £ offer they can get from new owners for the current debt. Of course that tax in perpetuity will be far, far more than the amount currently owed.
 

[SBW]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Its not a prediction. If there is no club you get no revenue. so no tax.

I really think you're overstating our inidivudal value to the taxman.

 

They fought to be made a preferential creditor, the precedent they will set by giving up a large % of what they are owed is much worse for them than losing 27m.  That figure is a drop in the ocean.  They want to stop football clubs ripping them off now and into the future, I imagine they will be willing to take a hit on what we owe them to prove that point and ensure other clubs take their debt more seriously going forward.

 

 

[Crewton]

It's impossible to know for sure what HMRC's backstop position is, unless you're party to the discussions. If they really are in "all or nothing" mode, it doesn't take a meeting to relay that message, so it's at least interesting that Quantuma have had at least one meeting with them. I'm not drawing any conclusions from that though. 

I will say, however, that deterrence isn't the best argument for applying sanctions. It's often argued that the death penalty deters people from committing capital crimes, but statistics generally disprove that. Unless liability for owners and directors is unlimited therefore, the equivalent of the death penalty in football is unlikely to deter reckless behaviour, in my opinion. 

[SBW]

1 minute ago, Crewton said:

It's impossible to know for sure what HMRC's backstop position is, unless you're party to the discussions. If they really are in "all or nothing" mode, it doesn't take a meeting to relay that message, so it's at least interesting that Quantuma have had at least one meeting with them. I'm not drawing any conclusions from that though. 

I will say, however, that deterrence isn't the best argument for applying sanctions. It's often argued that the death penalty deters people from committing capital crimes, but statistics generally disprove that. Unless liability for owners and directors is unlimited therefore, the equivalent of the death penalty in football is unlikely to deter reckless behaviour, in my opinion. 

Then why did they fight to be a preferential creditor, to then give it up? Precedent is key in law.  I'm not sure capital punishment and debt are quite one and the same. 

[Ram-Alf]

4 minutes ago, SBW said:

Then why did they fight to be a preferential creditor, to then give it up? Precedent is key in law.  I'm not sure capital punishment and debt are quite one and the same. 

Tell that to one of my ancesters, Who in 1583 owed 1 penny and a farthing for a pair of stockings/socks to keep his wife warm in the winter, He couldn't pay as he had no work, He was taken away by the authoritys, Charged with theft and hanged the next day, As he was walking to the gallows his wife waved to him with the stockings/socks and shouted to him...they're the wrong bloody colour.