The Administration Thread

[Half Fan Half Biscuit]

7 hours ago, Sparkle said:

So the Bill to HMRC has gone up - is that because money due this season hasn’t been passed on? Is that how it works whilst in administration? Or is this newly discovered/claimed?

i genuinely have no idea!

The administrators are obliged to pay over the taxes that become due during their period in control - eg PAYE / VAT.

The progress report shows that HMRC believe they are owed different amounts to those the directors believed were due when the companies went into administration. There is no indication as to who has the right numbers.

[Foreveram]

17 minutes ago, jono said:

I’ll let you know Imminently,  or in the next 48 hours, or, you’ll be surprised how quickly things move from now. 

Will you be sending an invoice for this comment.

[G STAR RAM]

If I am reading correctly, football club wage bill for last 6 months is around circa £8.5m.

Now from social media we know that Rooney is on £5m a year and Lawrence £1.5m, so over 6 months that would be £3.25m.

Is anyone else worried that other players are being paid less than minimum wage? 

[ram59]

2 hours ago, jimtastic56 said:

Wayne says “Agents are putting written offers in front of our players now” . They will be good offers as there is no fee to pay.These lads only have 10 years to make enough money to last a lifetime. They may all want to stay but they have to think about mortgages etc.

They are allowed to get another job after they finish their playing career, you know. Most of us have to work for over 40 years to make enough money to last a lifetime not 10 years.

[Crewton]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

If I am reading correctly, football club wage bill for last 6 months is around circa £8.5m.

Now from social media we know that Rooney is on £5m a year and Lawrence £1.5m, so over 6 months that would be £3.25m.

Is anyone else worried that other players are being paid less than minimum wage? 

You're quoting Rooney's supposed wage as a player, half of which was funded by additional sponsorship from 32Red. I'd be astonished if he was being paid the same amount as a manager in the 2nd tier, or if we were still getting half of it from the sponsors. Something just under £1m was what I'd read, though even that is high for this division, if true. 

The PFA would have got involved if any players were being paid less than the minimum. 

[uttoxram75]

6 minutes ago, Crewton said:

You're quoting Rooney's supposed wage as a player, half of which was funded by additional sponsorship from 32Red. I'd be astonished if he was being paid the same amount as a manager in the 2nd tier, or if we were still getting half of it from the sponsors. Something just under £1m was what I'd read, though even that is high for this division, if true. 

The PFA would have got involved if any players were being paid less than the minimum. 

I think @G STAR RAM is having a little dig at the gumps/smoggies/jimmysavilles etc on social media who seem to think they know anything about our finances!

[uttoxram75]

18 minutes ago, ram59 said:

Most of us have to work for over 40 years

45 so far and counting, hoping to retire in 5 years time, despite a 20 odd year career in the Uttoxeter and District League.

[Crewton]

16 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

I think @G STAR RAM is having a little dig at the gumps/smoggies/jimmysavilles etc on social media who seem to think they know anything about our finances!

Doh, my apologies then. 

[RamBeauIV]

10 hours ago, Half Fan Half Biscuit said:

The administrators are obliged to pay over the taxes that become due during their period in control - eg PAYE / VAT.

The progress report shows that HMRC believe they are owed different amounts to those the directors believed were due when the companies went into administration. There is no indication as to who has the right numbers.

Well that's reassuring to know that Q are paying the HMRC bills as they now arise (and the £8M difference hasn't been run up since they took over?).  What is frightening is that there was an £8M discrepency in the books as to what was owed to HMRC in the first place. W.r.t. "There is no indication as to who has the right numbers" then I presume that Q now accept the £36M is the correct figure.

Just hope there's no more skeletons in the closet (i.e. the books now that they've been found), or anything else to scare CK off.

Has anyone who's looked at the figures say what we owe to football creditors (was £8.3M in November)? Has this gone down??

(P.S. This week has been surreal ... Monday: relegation; Tues-Thurs: hope / light at the end of the tunnel; Friday: kick in the teeth again; Saturday: Beer & Football).

[Oldben]

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-takeover-news-ashley-6989083?utm_source=derbyshire_live_newsletter&utm_campaign=welcome_dcfc_newsletter2&utm_medium=email

As preferred bidder status removal date is 7 May, opening the option to purchase, to Ashley.

[kevinhectoring]

10 hours ago, ram59 said:

They are allowed to get another job after they finish their playing career, you know. Most of us have to work for over 40 years to make enough money to last a lifetime not 10 years.

Well most of them are well equipped to get another job after ‘retirement’ and employers are often keen to take them on 

[Crewton]

12 minutes ago, Oldben said:

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-takeover-news-ashley-6989083?utm_source=derbyshire_live_newsletter&utm_campaign=welcome_dcfc_newsletter2&utm_medium=email

As preferred bidder status removal date is 7 May, opening the option to purchase, to Ashley.

It's yet more re-hashed regurgitated nonsense from the DET. This bit is patently untrue :

Quote

Kirchner has until May 7, which is the final day of the season, to complete a deal and there are fears for the club's future if a move is not completed by then.

He doesn't need to have "completed a deal" by then. What he does have to do is to have sufficient agreement in place with the major creditors and the EFL to give him confidence to provide further funding until the take-over is fully completed thereafter and to give Quantuma confidence that he's fully committed. The immediate liabilities of the club on 7th May aren't materially different to the liabilities on 6th May, but the liabilities on 31st May will be.

[DavesaRam]

On 20/04/2022 at 14:51, duncanjwitham said:

I think that's fairly obvious.  They wanted it done as quickly as possible, and to have a clean slate for the new owner.  If they had been allowed to compress the Boro/Wycombe claims, it would have absolutely been the right decision - we could well have been out of admin by now and maybe even strengthened slightly in January rather than weakened ourselves.  Obviously hindsight is 20/20 etc etc.

The Boro/Wycombe claims were a stumbling block. They should gave been dealt with in a court of law, and no court would even consider them as they were so spurious. The efl wanted them dealt with in one of their “independent tribunals”, the title of which being about as truthful as calling our Prime Minister “Honest Boris”. That is why they were left hanging so long before “DTID Mel” sorted Gibson out for us.

[FlyBritishMidland]

37 minutes ago, Crewton said:

It's yet more re-hashed regurgitated nonsense from the DET. This bit is patently untrue :

He doesn't need to have "completed a deal" by then. What he does have to do is to have sufficient agreement in place with the major creditors and the EFL to give him confidence to provide further funding until the take-over is fully completed thereafter and to give Quantuma confidence that he's fully committed. The immediate liabilities of the club on 7th May aren't materially different to the liabilities on 6th May, but the liabilities on 31st May will be.

And CK has already said he’ll be funding the club after 7th May.  You’d think that they could at least read their own articles over the last week or so.

[Crewton]

1 minute ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

And CK has already said he’ll be funding the club after 7th May.  You’d think that they could at least read their own articles over the last week or so.

Yes, of course, and while there is always the possibility that he can pull out before completing a deal, the "end of the season" on May 7th is not the next major crisis point, so to keep claiming it is is simply scaremongering. 

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, RamBeauIV said:

Well that's reassuring to know that Q are paying the HMRC bills as they now arise (and the £8M difference hasn't been run up since they took over?).  What is frightening is that there was an £8M discrepency in the books as to what was owed to HMRC in the first place. W.r.t. "There is no indication as to who has the right numbers" then I presume that Q now accept the £36M is the correct figure.

Just hope there's no more skeletons in the closet (i.e. the books now that they've been found), or anything else to scare CK off.

Has anyone who's looked at the figures say what we owe to football creditors (was £8.3M in November)? Has this gone down??

(P.S. This week has been surreal ... Monday: relegation; Tues-Thurs: hope / light at the end of the tunnel; Friday: kick in the teeth again; Saturday: Beer & Football).

Difficult to see how there could be scope for differences. It’s Paye and vat taxes which should be easy to calculate. Not so easy to pay. 

[IslandExile]

1 hour ago, Oldben said:

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-takeover-news-ashley-6989083?utm_source=derbyshire_live_newsletter&utm_campaign=welcome_dcfc_newsletter2&utm_medium=email

As preferred bidder status removal date is 7 May, opening the option to purchase, to Ashley.

Look at the positivity around at the moment with CK and Rooney planning to rebuild the club.

We don't want Ashley with his disruptive opportunistic profiteering ruining the whole happy anticipation.

[kevinhectoring]

39 minutes ago, DavesaRam said:

The Boro/Wycombe claims were a stumbling block. They should gave been dealt with in a court of law, and no court would even consider them as they were so spurious. The efl wanted them dealt with in one of their “independent tribunals”, the title of which being about as truthful as calling our Prime Minister “Honest Boris”. That is why they were left hanging so long before “DTID Mel” sorted Gibson out for us.

Yes the Wycombe claim was completely spurious and the Boro one speculative. But the EFL rules say they needed to be decided by a tribunal. I don’t think the EFL has any power to require them to be taken to a court of law. And that would have been disastrous for us because it would have taken months if not years to resolve with no one willing to buy in the meantime.
 

What the EFL did try to do was get the claims fast tracked but they had no way to force Gibbo to go that route 

[Sparkle]

13 hours ago, jimtastic56 said:

Wayne says “Agents are putting written offers in front of our players now” . They will be good offers as there is no fee to pay.These lads only have 10 years to make enough money to last a lifetime. They may all want to stay but they have to think about mortgages etc.

All true yet I suspect there are several players in that Derby squad who are just simply saying that they have never seen or never experienced the support and togetherness of the supporters this season in their entire football careers and people should be careful of moving elsewhere because that disappears with one misplaced pass in any other squad currently. 
When players like Curtis Davies are prepared to put their career on the line for a football club the supporters remember - forever - when players like Davies play every game with utmost professionalism to a high standard the supporters remember - forever - when players like Davies say they love this football club and have played for no more than £4,500 a week the other players take notice. 

[CornwallRam]

40 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Difficult to see how there could be scope for differences. It’s Paye and vat taxes which should be easy to calculate. Not so easy to pay. 

I wonder if the figure also includes the non-preferential HMRC debts, eg, employers' NIC and corporation tax? The latter is still possible even though the club made a loss as I believe the figure includes all the chains of companies and the academy, clubDCFC etc. It's possible that one or more of them showed a profit.