The Administration Thread

[Mucker1884]

2 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Kirchner seems to have gone quiet.

 

Wasn't he tweeting updates on Thursday afternoon, with promises of further updates as and when relevant info became fact?
So that's a Friday, a Saturday matchday, and Sunday Breakfast.  Assuming they have weekends in USA, I think we can forgive him?  ?‍♂️

[jono]

10 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

There’s a lot in this ! I have put some thoughts in your post above. I think some people underestimate the extent to which Gibbo has contributed to our problems

I don’t agree with you when you say it’s quite simple. 

I don’t dismiss the extent Gibson contributed, what I maintain is, that the solution lay primarily with the EFL.

If we stick to the insistence that it would have been a tribunal issue ( not something I agree with entirely, but perhaps it is in the EFL’s rules ) then it could have been dealt with within days by the EFL at the time it happened. Long before we were in Admin.

Outside a clear claim for damages against Derby in court; which Boro did not pursue, Then it really is simple. The EFL failed to act, and did so on multiple occasions. 

[jono]

1 hour ago, Arsene Titman said:

He did. He used a method of player amortisation which was not in accordance with EFL rules. If he wasn’t aware of EFL rules then he should have been. If he was  aware then the only reason for using an alternative method was to achieve an unfair financial advantage.

But we’re those rules in place at the time ? 

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, jono said:

we stick to the insistence that it would have been a tribunal issue ( not something I agree with entirely, but perhaps it is in the EFL’s rules ) then it could have been dealt with within days by the EFL at the time it happened. Long before we were in Admin.

Outside a clear claim for damages against Derby in court; which Boro did not pursue, Then it really is simple. The EFL failed to act, and did so on multiple occasions. 

Yes, EFL acted too late. But they did eventually say they would fast track the dispute. Q may have been reluctant to roll the dice before a tribunal and certainly Gibbo had no incentive to do anything but delay, dissemble and wait for MM to come crawling.
 

It’s clear from Parry’s comments at the time that he was as pissed off with Boro as he was with us and it’s hard to imagine EFL did not put pressure on Gibbo to settle so as to allow us to be sold. Q should have encouraged MM to resolve it much sooner through an indemnity to the club (and people were saying that a long way back, it’s not hindsight). Q misread the whole issue very badly, from a technical and tactical perspective. 
 

I’ve not seen anything in the rules that would enable the EFL to have forced a resolution. And no one else on here has explained in black and white what EFL could have done to bring Boro to the table. All Gibbo had to say to deflect the EFL was: “the Derby sale is not my concern, my club is entitled to pursue its legal rights as and when it likes ...”.  

[rammieib]

2 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Kirchner seems to have gone quiet.

 

He’s allowed a life you know.

[Van der MoodHoover]

13 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Yes, EFL acted too late. But they did eventually say they would fast track the dispute. Q may have been reluctant to roll the dice before a tribunal and certainly Gibbo had no incentive to do anything but delay, dissemble and wait for MM to come crawling.
 

It’s clear from Parry’s comments at the time that he was as pissed off with Boro as he was with us and it’s hard to imagine EFL did not put pressure on Gibbo to settle so as to allow us to be sold. Q should have encouraged MM to resolve it much sooner through an indemnity to the club (and people were saying that a long way back, it’s not hindsight). Q misread the whole issue very badly, from a technical and tactical perspective. 
 

I’ve not seen anything in the rules that would enable the EFL to have forced a resolution. And no one else on here has explained in black and white what EFL could have done to bring Boro to the table. All Gibbo had to say to deflect the EFL was: “the Derby sale is not my concern, my club is entitled to pursue its legal rights as and when it likes ...”.  

What the EFL could have considered is what they have done subsequently which is to amend the rules to prevent the actions of Gibson. 

We'll never know whether that could have been successful, but to prevent the kind of dissembling seen, it would have been a start.

Blimey, even a statement to the effect that the actions of boro were not within the spirit of the rules and were causing unnecessary disruption to an already complex and sensitive situation would have been something. 

The blasted efl were quick enough to get their pr puff out there when they formed the view that dcfc were somehow gaining an advantage. 

Useless spineless craven lazy barstewards is what they are. 

[Shipley Ram]

2 hours ago, Abu Derby said:

Then Mel wasn’t as clever then; he was tried and proven guilty. 

I don't think it was Mel's cleverness that was the problem, as other have remarked creative accouting practices are rife in football and the rest of the business world, and most could be brought to book with the right sort of investigation. Mel failed on the PR front, he pi**ed of the wrong people and we got witch hunted. It ended with the EFL determined to see us relegated  when it was clear the IDP look at the the evidence and had no such view.

What worries me is the EFL might still have it in for us despite Mels departure, and give us a business plan for the next three years devised to make us uncompetitive.

[Wignall12]

2 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

MackworthRamIsGod said:

Kirchner seems to have gone quiet.

???? how impatient ? 

He'll be back when there is something to tell you , isn't that what he said ? 

[Naughty James]

How much has the "value" of the club dropped since "relegation?"

 

Was his "original" offer based on relegation or will he be submitting a new "bid" much like he did at Preston?

Edited April 24, 2022 by Naughty James

[Ramos]

2 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

Wasn't he tweeting updates on Thursday afternoon, with promises of further updates as and when relevant info became fact?
So that's a Friday, a Saturday matchday, and Sunday Breakfast.  Assuming they have weekends in USA, I think we can forgive him?  ?‍♂️

I hear it’s a bank holiday 

[B4ev6is]

6 minutes ago, Ramos said:

I hear it’s a bank holiday 

Look I think he will post something very very shortly.

[Jimbo Ram]

Just now, B4ev6is said:

Look I think he will post something very very shortly.

ITK B4 ??

[Elwood P Dowd]

51 minutes ago, Shipley Ram said:

I don't think it was Mel's cleverness that was the problem, as other have remarked creative accouting practices are rife in football and the rest of the business world, and most could be brought to book with the right sort of investigation. Mel failed on the PR front, he pi**ed of the wrong people and we got witch hunted. It ended with the EFL determined to see us relegated  when it was clear the IDP look at the the evidence and had no such view.

What worries me is the EFL might still have it in for us despite Mels departure, and give us a business plan for the next three years devised to make us uncompetitive.

If there is one thing that really rankles me about, our soon to be former owner, is the none payment of income tax that his company, Derby County, collected from the players but did not pass on to HMRC.

I understand about limited liability and would have had some sympathy if he had been broke and had used the “tax money” to try to save the company however, this wasn't the case.

I do feel that perhaps a change in the law would be appropriate to ensure that in the future a Director/owner would be personally responsible for the repayment of tax money  which has been collected but not passed onto HMRC.

HMRC don’t come out of this situation very well either, why did they allow Derby to avoid passing on the collected tax for so long. Yes, you could say it this situation occurred during Covid but I feel Derby’s non payment of Tax was going on some time before Covid stuck.

 

 

 

[CBRammette]

I dont want CK to post every day as then you get the sort of garbage on here when a day is missed. I assume nothing further can happen until EFL approve stuff

[duncanjwitham]

32 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

I do feel that perhaps a change in the law would be appropriate to ensure that in the future a Director/owner would be personally responsible for the repayment of tax money  which has been collected but not passed onto HMRC.

The problem is, not all companies are owned by rich people.  You are basically making it illegal for people to own businesses unless they can completely cover all costs no matter what the circumstances. Start a small business and grow it a bit? Congratulations, you are now one bit of bad luck away from personal bankruptcy.

32 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

HMRC don’t come out of this situation very well either, why did they allow Derby to avoid passing on the collected tax for so long. Yes, you could say it this situation occurred during Covid but I feel Derby’s non payment of Tax was going on some time before Covid stuck.

There's no way we were not paying tax before COVID, no matter what you feel.  We would have been under a strict embargo as soon as we started.  And purely by the numbers involved, it hasn't been going on *that* long.  ~40% tax on a large wage bill very soon reaches the levels we're talking about.

[PistoldPete]

2 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

What the EFL could have considered is what they have done subsequently which is to amend the rules to prevent the actions of Gibson. 

We'll never know whether that could have been successful, but to prevent the kind of dissembling seen, it would have been a start.

Blimey, even a statement to the effect that the actions of boro were not within the spirit of the rules and were causing unnecessary disruption to an already complex and sensitive situation would have been something. 

The blasted efl were quick enough to get their pr puff out there when they formed the view that dcfc were somehow gaining an advantage. 

Useless spineless craven lazy barstewards is what they are. 

Come on get off the fence VdM and say what you really mean.

[Shipley Ram]

50 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

If there is one thing that really rankles me about, our soon to be former owner, is the none payment of income tax that his company, Derby County, collected from the players but did not pass on to HMRC.

I understand about limited liability and would have had some sympathy if he had been broke and had used the “tax money” to try to save the company however, this wasn't the case.

I do feel that perhaps a change in the law would be appropriate to ensure that in the future a Director/owner would be personally responsible for the repayment of tax money  which has been collected but not passed onto HMRC.

HMRC don’t come out of this situation very well either, why did they allow Derby to avoid passing on the collected tax for so long. Yes, you could say it this situation occurred during Covid but I feel Derby’s non payment of Tax was going on some time before Covid stuck.

Yes Mel behaved in a reprehensible, but legal way with the non payment of bills. It's the way business behave but it shafted Derby county, and a whole load of local business's who may struggle with the repucussions of this. It seems when he realised they had in in for us he decided not to inject any more cash, to borrow for the running costs and not pay bills when he could get away with it. There was an easement from HMRC for Covid which he used to the full.

The way you are looking at the collection from the player is wrong he my opinion, they appear on the wage slips as deductions yes but in reality the company pays both the wages and taxes, it wasn't taking money and not forwarding it but not paying a bill. I don't think a change to the liability law as you suggest would be on the cards.

[hintonsboots]

2 hours ago, B4ev6is said:

Look I think he will post something very very shortly.

48 hours ?

[I know nuffin]

5 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

the auditors signed off on the accounts. So don’t think that alone would be enough for EFL now to refuse him ownership of a club. A somewhat hypothetical question tho 

Didn't think there was a rule until recently how amortization had to be done

[Charlie George]

5 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

Wasn't he tweeting updates on Thursday afternoon, with promises of further updates as and when relevant info became fact?
So that's a Friday, a Saturday matchday, and Sunday Breakfast.  Assuming they have weekends in USA, I think we can forgive him?  ?‍♂️

Wonder if he knew about all the extra costs that came out on Thursday  / Friday?

Was speaking to someone who knows at the game Saturday,and there are doubts about the viability of the bid. Expects Ashley to get the club.