Alan Nixon Breaks Silence on American Billionaire Bid

[atherstoneram]

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

A payment plan of any kind is of limited use without a significant reduction in the claim from HMRC.

If that's the case we are screwed as i see it but that is just my opinion of course.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Are you comparing with personal tax situations? As I say a payment plan is of limited use in a business situation. We are asking buyers who do not owe the money to take on debt that is currently not theirs. Why should they accept this debt? They may be willing to make a contribution, but  only a smaller part of it I suspect.

I may have experience in this sort of thing i.e large scale administration.  Nudge Nudge 

[PistoldPete]

1 minute ago, atherstoneram said:

But players and backroom staff will find other teams so HMRC still get taxes going forward. Fans who won't buy season tickets anymore will spend their money on something else paying VAT so they still don't lose out

You think HMRC wouldnt lose out big time. ? So you have 30k fans with nothing to do on Saturday afternoon They will certainly not spend the same amount of money as they would have if they had gone to a football match? See the other thread most people woudn't have a clue what to do  they will just sit moaning on the internet .  They wouldn't  spend the same amount of money watch another team on Sky either.   

[atherstoneram]

5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Are you comparing with personal tax situations? As I say a payment plan is of limited use in a business situation. We are asking buyers who do not owe the money to take on debt that is currently not theirs. Why should they accept this debt? They may be willing to make a contribution, but  only a smaller part of it I suspect.

Because the debt is against the club not whoever is in the engine house.

[PistoldPete]

1 minute ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

I may have experience in this sort of thing i.e large scale administration.  Nudge Nudge 

Oh OK. Then I bow to you sir. I do not think HMRC will get much more than 25%. Hope I am wrong.   

[PistoldPete]

1 minute ago, atherstoneram said:

Because the debt is against the club not whoever is in the engine house.

Yes but a buyer will not want all the debt. That is why the club is in adminstration. No one wanted to buy the club with all of its debt. A deal has to be struck.

[atherstoneram]

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

You think HMRC wouldnt lose out big time. ? So you have 30k fans with nothing to do on Saturday afternoon They will certainly not spend the same amount of money as they would have if they had gone to a football match? See the other thread most people woudn't have a clue what to do  they will just sit moaning on the internet .  They wouldn't  spend the same amount of money watch another team on Sky either.   

Sorry Pete,i know what you are getting at but HMRC wouldn't be bothered about how many viewers Sky get

[Rev]

21 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

There is no benchmark. HMRC should aim to get what they can , but not end up with nothing.

That's exactly what I said, we'll become the benchmark. 

Without Covid, it would certainly be higher than 25%, but what they'll accept who knows?

They might see missing out on a few millions settlement as a price worth paying to prevent future administrations.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

3 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Oh OK. Then I bow to you sir. I do not think HMRC will get much more than 25%. Hope I am wrong.   

To be honest mate, would be ideal if I was.  A football club has a certain community status which will come into play I hope and that could make a difference but we won't get away with murder as the first victim on the preferential creditor pile. 

[i-Ram]

21 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I think the money owed to Arsenal for Bielik for example would be a priority. EFL League staus wouldn't change that I don't think, you still have FA for example. Anyway if we lost our League status we would have no means of paying anyone anything at all.   

You might be right regarding the FA, but in the worst case scenario, that the club as we know it doesn’t continue as a footballing entity, I don’t think even any FA rule is a consideration for a Liquidator. You revert to the rules of liquidation, being pay in order secured creditors, administrators/liquidators fees, preferential creditors (HMRC and small wage payments to employees - used to be £800 max) and unsecured creditors including football creditors. If HMRC really want to pay hard ball the calculation they should be doing is how much would they generate from the sale of assets - mainly players obviously - to extinguish their debt in a liquidation (MSD will recover from owning or selling the ground). If HMRC think they can get more from that process, than they would get by someone like CK being a white knight and buying the club and repaying in proportion, then they might decide no deal DCFC.

 

[PistoldPete]

12 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

I think the 8 million could only be used to assist HMRC liability,  HMRC would have been contacted to see if such liability existed and payment would have been made directly to them on a lump sum or ad hoc basis as debt became due.- or should have been.  I can't see logically that amount of debt accrued during covid alone as sponsorship and other payments to the club outside of normal match day revenue was paid as normal apparently.  

The admin team issued a report saying funding gap due to COVID was £30 m to £40 m. Of that £20 million I think was lost revenue during the period to August 2021. Coroprate hospitality , events , cafes restaurants etc all suffered as well as lost ticket income for 15 months.

The club has also had  net profits from transfers every year since 2015-16  apart from 2019-20. That source of profit/ mitigating losses will also have been affected by COVID.    

[Crewton]

In the event of a liquidation, football creditors get paid from an EFL Pool Fund, into which goes any compensation money that the EFL get from other clubs signing players released from their DCFC contracts automatically on liquidation. 

[Carnero]

1 minute ago, Rev said:

That's exactly what I said, we'll become the benchmark. 

Without Covid, it would certainly be higher than 25%, but what they'll accept who knows?

They might see missing out on a few millions settlement as a price worth paying to prevent future administrations.

This has often been touted by Nixon as a £50m deal inc £20m for the stadium (which pays off MSD).

Paying £1.5m (25%) to unsecured creditors and taking on £9m of football liabilities leaves approx £19.5m.

Knock off the admin costs at £3m and £1.5m of additional MSD funding leaves approx £15m as a balance that can be offered to HMRC (50% of what they're owed).

I think this is close to where it will probably end up.

New owner gets a clean club with an "£80m valued" stadium for £50m.

MSD gets paid in full.

HMRC gets 50% for their new preferential status.

Unsecureds get 25%.

MM flushes £200m down the tube.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

16 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

The admin team issued a report saying funding gap due to COVID was £30 m to £40 m. Of that £20 million I think was lost revenue during the period to August 2021. Coroprate hospitality , events , cafes restaurants etc all suffered as well as lost ticket income for 15 months.

The club has also had  net profits from transfers every year since 2015-16  apart from 2019-20. That source of profit/ mitigating losses will also have been affected by COVID.    

30 to 40 million is quite a gap.  If they can't do better than that,  no wonder these negotiations are taking so long .  I'd like to assume that figure was quoted when they first took over the finances.  If they were saying that in the last 8 weeks we need a new set of administrators. 

[PistoldPete]

24 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

You might be right regarding the FA, but in the worst case scenario, that the club as we know it doesn’t continue as a footballing entity, I don’t think even any FA rule is a consideration for a Liquidator. You revert to the rules of liquidation, being pay in order secured creditors, administrators/liquidators fees, preferential creditors (HMRC and small wage payments to employees - used to be £800 max) and unsecured creditors including football creditors. If HMRC really want to pay hard ball the calculation they should be doing is how much would they generate from the sale of assets - mainly players obviously - to extinguish their debt in a liquidation (MSD will recover from owning or selling the ground). If HMRC think they can get more from that process, than they would get by someone like CK being a white knight and buying the club and repaying in proportion, then they might decide no deal DCFC.

 

I don't see any scenario in which HMRC gets anything more than zip in the event of liquidation.

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

30 to 40 million is quite a gap.  If they can't do better than that,  no wonder these negotiations are taking so long .  I'd like to assume that figure was quoted when they first took over the finances.  If they were saying that in the last 8 weeks we need a new set of administrators. 

I think it's because they are including loss on player valuations, which is subjective. Lost revenue was £20 million, and still revenue is lost as vulnerable fans are staying away. I don't see how you can be that precise. Either way even at the bottom end of the range £30 m is more money than we owe HMRC.

[PistoldPete]

37 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

Sorry Pete,i know what you are getting at but HMRC wouldn't be bothered about how many viewers Sky get

No but everyone knows football is something people are prepared to spend silly money on. Look at ... er.. mel Morris!

Take football away and people will spend a lot less money. Derby were getting £30 m revenue before COVID. Plus top ups from Mel's piggy bank. That was a lot of tax that HMRC WILL have collected. Shame to waste the opportunity for more of that in perpetuity.

 

[Rev]

27 minutes ago, Carnero said:

This has often been touted by Nixon as a £50m deal inc £20m for the stadium (which pays off MSD).

Paying £1.5m (25%) to unsecured creditors and taking on £9m of football liabilities leaves approx £19.5m.

Knock off the admin costs at £3m and £1.5m of additional MSD funding leaves approx £15m as a balance that can be offered to HMRC (50% of what they're owed).

I think this is close to where it will probably end up.

New owner gets a clean club with an "£80m valued" stadium for £50m.

MSD gets paid in full.

HMRC gets 50% for their new preferential status.

Unsecureds get 25%.

MM flushes £200m down the tube.

That sounds about as good an outcome as we could wish for, in the circumstances.

 

[I know nuffin]

Until Middlesbrough/Wycombe is settled I don't see how anything can move. The administrators might even have an agreed figure with HMRC but it must be provision on those two getting nothing, if the panel finds in their favour , cannot see that it will,  then liabilities will increase making every one get less. Believe it goes to arbitration but nobody has asked when this is scheduled to happen with all eyes on the taxman.

[RoyMac5]

31 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

Until Middlesbrough/Wycombe is settled I don't see how anything can move. The administrators might even have an agreed figure with HMRC but it must be provision on those two getting nothing, if the panel finds in their favour , cannot see that it will,  then liabilities will increase making every one get less. Believe it goes to arbitration but nobody has asked when this is scheduled to happen with all eyes on the taxman.

What panel?