The Administration Thread

[RipleyRich]

11 hours ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

No the debt doesn’t change, but the bidders may consider our worth as a club does dependent upon the League.

I agree with that, but I actually think no one is bidding, or will ultimately pay any significant value for "The Club". It will be the proverbial £1 sale.

I think the bids and Quantuma efforts are all focused on a figure that clears the EFL and Legal Requirements for the debt and no more.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

There is an awful lot if guessing going on, educated or otherwise. 

Edited March 10, 2022 by The Scarlet Pimpernel

[Reggie Greenwood]

26 minutes ago, RipleyRich said:

You may well be right. I am just reading what I can find and interpreting it as best I can.

It`s this bit that concerns me, taken directly from Quantuma`s own article titled: "Is rescuing Football Clubs a thing of the past?"

Changes to status of HMRC tax debt

With effect from 1 December 2020, HMRC will receive preferential status for all tax debt. This means these debts get paid ahead of other unsecured debts as well as some secured debts and crucially, as a preferential debt, it cannot be compromised. As a result, clubs will need to pay HMRC in full.

Now I appreciate a number of members of this forum have had a go at me over this, and some think I have a hidden agenda which I can assure you I have not. I am just reading and gathering factual information and trying to put the pieces together and that piece of information concerns me more than anything else I have found.

It however doesn`t state debts have to be paid in full to exit administration, so my assumption is a new owner can agree a payment plan over an agreed period. But reading that my understanding is that the Tax Bill will have to be settled in full at some point.
 

And keep repeating ad infinitum. We all know your opinion 15 times over. 

[CBRammette]

26 minutes ago, RipleyRich said:

You may well be right. I am just reading what I can find and interpreting it as best I can.

It`s this bit that concerns me, taken directly from Quantuma`s own article titled: "Is rescuing Football Clubs a thing of the past?"

Changes to status of HMRC tax debt

With effect from 1 December 2020, HMRC will receive preferential status for all tax debt. This means these debts get paid ahead of other unsecured debts as well as some secured debts and crucially, as a preferential debt, it cannot be compromised. As a result, clubs will need to pay HMRC in full.

Now I appreciate a number of members of this forum have had a go at me over this, and some think I have a hidden agenda which I can assure you I have not. I am just reading and gathering factual information and trying to put the pieces together and that piece of information concerns me more than anything else I have found.

It however doesn`t state debts have to be paid in full to exit administration, so my assumption is a new owner can agree a payment plan over an agreed period. But reading that my understanding is that the Tax Bill will have to be settled in full at some point.
 

 

27 minutes ago, RipleyRich said:

You may well be right. I am just reading what I can find and interpreting it as best I can.

It`s this bit that concerns me, taken directly from Quantuma`s own article titled: "Is rescuing Football Clubs a thing of the past?"

Changes to status of HMRC tax debt

With effect from 1 December 2020, HMRC will receive preferential status for all tax debt. This means these debts get paid ahead of other unsecured debts as well as some secured debts and crucially, as a preferential debt, it cannot be compromised. As a result, clubs will need to pay HMRC in full.

Now I appreciate a number of members of this forum have had a go at me over this, and some think I have a hidden agenda which I can assure you I have not. I am just reading and gathering factual information and trying to put the pieces together and that piece of information concerns me more than anything else I have found.

It however doesn`t state debts have to be paid in full to exit administration, so my assumption is a new owner can agree a payment plan over an agreed period. But reading that my understanding is that the Tax Bill will have to be settled in full at some point.
 

"I am just reading and gathering factual information and trying to put the pieces together" - yes but the problem is do you not think other members have not been doing the same since before you joined the forum on Tuesday or whenever? You post like this is news that only you have discovered I am afraid as you will see if you read forum posts chronologically since September. You may find this has all been discussed previously many many times over the last almost 1000 pages and many other threads that existed at or before the start of admin. It has been discussed so much that most of us are entering this year's insolvency practitioners and CTA exams.
I am sorry to be grumpy but just did my usual first look at the forum to see the news and it is full of your posts on the same thing as all of yesterday. It is nothing at all personal just well covered ground but if your aim is to be the first post on page 1000 have fun

[RipleyRich]

5 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

And keep repeating ad infinitum. We all know your opinion 15 times over. 

And I thought that`s what this forum was for? To share opinions, information and debate them.

Wheras it appears that if you share facts and information that people don`t like then you get abuse and derision!

I can`t change the information and facts that are out there, I`m just bringing it to attention so that maybe we can all get a better understanding of what "might" be going on behind closed doors. Because let`s be honest, we aren`t being told much, and in truth I think I`m less guilty of repetition than Quantuma!

I`m just amazed considering the situation they have left that article live............or is there a reason for that?

Now that`s me being sceptical, but let`s just say I have a very uncomfortable feeling about that situation and until anyone can show me something that counters it in a positive way it ain`t going away.

[Reggie Greenwood]

30 minutes ago, RipleyRich said:

I agree with that, but I actually think no one is bidding, or will ultimately pay any significant value for "The Club". It will be the proverbial £1 sale.

I think the bids and Quantuma efforts are all focused on a figure that clears the EFL and Legal Requirements for the debt and no more.

Common knowledge and reported by Q and news outlets at least 3 groups have put bids in 

[RipleyRich]

3 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

 

"I am just reading and gathering factual information and trying to put the pieces together" - yes but the problem is do you not think other members have not been doing the same since before you joined the forum on Tuesday or whenever? You post like this is news that only you have discovered I am afraid as you will see if you read forum posts chronologically since September. You may find this has all been discussed previously many many times over the last almost 1000 pages and many other threads that existed at or before the start of admin. It has been discussed so much that most of us are entering this year's insolvency practitioners and CTA exams.
I am sorry to be grumpy but just did my usual first look at the forum to see the news and it is full of your posts on the same thing as all of yesterday. It is nothing at all personal just well covered ground but if your aim is to be the first post on page 1000 have fun

Fair do`s. I will admit to not having read every page of this thread so stand to be corrected. I had just not read it anywhere else so wasn`t sure if it was know.

Just scares the living **** out of me.

[RamBeauIV]

11 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

There is an awful lot if guessing going on, educated or otherwise. 

Oooh, can I have a guess then?

Throughout this thread, quite a few posters have underestimated the role of HMRC in us surviving. None of us want to hear this and hence the reluctance to hear what RipleyRich is saying.

Such as:
(1) They have to make do with 25% (£7.5M).  That's not gonna happen.
(2) If Q fees and PB deposit reduce price and money for creditors, then HMRC will have to make do with less.  That's not gonna happen.
(3) HMRC will settle for less than 25% or get diddly squat if liquidated.  That's not gonna happen (i.e. them settling for less, as they're not gonna give two hoots about us being wound up).
(4) "the Government Minister who stated in the HoC that HMRC would not be the cause of Derby's demise". Factually true for a politician, as it wasn't HMRC who refused to accept our £28.5M, or will refuse to accept it in the future. Inferring that they're gonna let us off (coz we're a community asset and our mental health) is not gonna happen.

Thankfully, Q have engaged with HMRC and got them on board with possible scenarios to resolve this (e.g. 25% upfront and then a CVA / payment plan over X years). It will be up to the PB to negotiate this with HMRC, but presumably the bids will have addressed this in their proposals (e.g. another 40%, 50%, 60%, 75% over 2 or 3 years etc.).  My guess is that the bids (in respect of the HMRC resolution) need to be bounced off HMRC for their tacit approval as to whether they're in the right ballpark.

[Reggie Greenwood]

Just now, RipleyRich said:

And I thought that`s what this forum was for? To share opinions, information and debate them.

Wheras it appears that if you share facts and information that people don`t like then you get abuse and derision!

I can`t change the information and facts that are out there, I`m just bringing it to attention so that maybe we can all get a better understanding of what "might" be going on behind closed doors. Because let`s be honest, we aren`t being told much, and in truth I think I`m less guilty of repetition than Quantuma!

I`m just amazed considering the situation they have left that article live............or is there a reason for that?

Now that`s me being sceptical, but let`s just say I have a very uncomfortable feeling about that situation and until anyone can show me something that counters it in a positive way it ain`t going away.

I’m not abusing you , just pointing out that basically you are repeating the same post multiple times that has been discussed on here many times previously 
You have your opinion great , but it doesn’t make it more right (or wrong) however many times you say it. 
 

[PistoldPete]

11 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

How will we ensure that? We can't compel interested parties to pay more than what they think the club or more correctly the debts they're buying are worth in their own minds. 

Quantuma has some control over what fees they charge. They cannot just rely on insolvency law and say they have to be paid.. if this drags on much longer their fees will just mount up and could be a major reason why a bid could fail. 

[angieram]

1 minute ago, RamBeauIV said:

 

Thankfully, Q have engaged with HMRC and got them on board with possible scenarios to resolve this (e.g. 25% upfront and then a CVA / payment plan over X years). It will be up to the PB to negotiate this with HMRC, but presumably the bids will have addressed this in their proposals (e.g. another 40%, 50%, 60%, 75% over 2 or 3 years etc.). 

And you know this how? 

[RipleyRich]

1 minute ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

Common knowledge and reported by Q and news outlets at least 3 groups have put bids in 

Probably didn`t explain very well. I know bids are in, but I feel the bidding values are essentially to clear the debt. I don`t think any value is being put on the club or its assets as such. So in effect the Club is £1 (or some other nominal figure), then the debt clearance value of £XXm to be added in order to proceed.

I don`t feel the Club valuation is the problem, it`s the amount required to satisfy Creditors in compliance with Legal and EFL requirements that at the moment is the stumbling block.

[Tamworthram]

11 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

We need to ensure bids exceed the EFL threshold to avoid further penalty points deductions.  But also make sure quantuma get their money too (well they would want that too wouldn't they?).

To be fair, whilst Q may well be charging over the odds and possibly stringing the process out, it’s only right that the administrators fees are high up the preferential list otherwise administrators wouldn’t take on the vast majority of cases I suspect.

[Jimbo Ram]

6 minutes ago, RipleyRich said:

And I thought that`s what this forum was for? To share opinions, information and debate them.

Wheras it appears that if you share facts and information that people don`t like then you get abuse and derision!

I can`t change the information and facts that are out there, I`m just bringing it to attention so that maybe we can all get a better understanding of what "might" be going on behind closed doors. Because let`s be honest, we aren`t being told much, and in truth I think I`m less guilty of repetition than Quantuma!

I`m just amazed considering the situation they have left that article live............or is there a reason for that?

Now that`s me being sceptical, but let`s just say I have a very uncomfortable feeling about that situation and until anyone can show me something that counters it in a positive way it ain`t going away.

Not sure if anyone, including you, really knows any facts....all conjecture I say.....

[Rich84]

14 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

There is an awful lot if guessing going on, educated or otherwise. 

I think that's the problem, there's very little educated guessing going on, certainly not informed guessing as only Quantuma know the ins and outs. Not saying people aren't educated..... 

There's been that much said that at some point someone will be able to 'claim' I told you so..... whereas in fact, it was just another guess.

Whatever happens, happens, and no amount of regurgitating the same discussion will change it, there's bigger things in the world to worry about tbh

[Crewton]

Another one that joined on Tuesday in order to share yet more pointless speculation with us..... ? 

[RipleyRich]

5 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

I’m not abusing you , just pointing out that basically you are repeating the same post multiple times that has been discussed on here many times previously 
You have your opinion great , but it doesn’t make it more right (or wrong) however many times you say it. 
 

I appreciate I haven`t had abuse from you and I apologise if I inferred it.

Probably just getting a bit frustrated because people seem to be putting their fingers in their ears and singing "LaLaLa".

RamBeaulV has probably made a better explanation of it than I have above.

[CBRammette]

15 minutes ago, RipleyRich said:

Fair do`s. I will admit to not having read every page of this thread so stand to be corrected. I had just not read it anywhere else so wasn`t sure if it was know.

Just scares the living **** out of me.

It is known. It is scary. 

[RamBeauIV]

12 minutes ago, angieram said:

And you know this how? 

Let's say an educated guess. 
(i) We have to pay a minimum of 25% upfront to satisfy the EFL (and not get the 15 point deduction next season). 
(ii) Q have said that they have had those negotiations with HMRC and presented them with a range of scenarios.
(iii) Resolution will have to be a payment plan.

[RamBeauIV]

11 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Another one that joined on Tuesday in order to share yet more pointless speculation with us..... ? 

RipleyRich ... Is that you Daddy?