Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Wayne Rooney's Derby County - not any more (p41)

1…3334363839…43

Comments

  • Redrobo
    Redrobo Posts: 11,330
    Gary Poole said:
    Athletico Charlton said:
    Gary Poole said:
    Taking into account that a lot of money is owed to the tax payer and how decisive the government were able to be in getting Abramovitch out of Chelsea when it suited them. I would like them to make a compulsory purchase of the ground for the sum of a pound, even if they have to rush through legislation to do so. The club without the ground could then be sold at a more favourable rate to purchasers and we could recover our money by renting out the stadium to the club.

    Taking action like this might then deter owners from such unscrupulous practice n the future.
    No way. CPO have to be at market value.  You can't simply stick legislation through to cut through that for a one off situation as it would set a hugely dangerous precedent for the Govt to use it elsewhere the same way.
    I take your point, but for far too long governments have dithered and delayed in doing anything about the immoral way that professional football has operated in this country. Leaving it to govern its self at the expense of both the taxpayer and smaller companies that get ripped off subsidising certain wealthy peoples gambles on achieving a very unlikely success. When it suited the government acted swiftly to wrestle the hands of Chelsea from it’s owner. Legislation could be put in place to tackle this unique problem that wouldn’t have to impact on anything else. To do nothing and keep losing money seems to me to be weak leadership.
    One thing the Government could do is to instruct Revenue and Customs not to accept a deal. Then they (taxpayers) get paid in full, or bankruptcy and they are preferential creditors.
    I am shocked and very disappointed that the debt to R&C has been allowed to rise. It is standard practice that administrators ensure that suppliers etc get paid in full for anything they provide after the date of administration. This smacks of ripping off taxpayers and it is about time someone looked after the taxpayers of this Country who get the bill for all the failed banks and businesses and the people who failed just shrug and go home to their mansions.
  • msomerton
    msomerton Posts: 2,969
    Redrobo said:
    Gary Poole said:
    Athletico Charlton said:
    Gary Poole said:
    Taking into account that a lot of money is owed to the tax payer and how decisive the government were able to be in getting Abramovitch out of Chelsea when it suited them. I would like them to make a compulsory purchase of the ground for the sum of a pound, even if they have to rush through legislation to do so. The club without the ground could then be sold at a more favourable rate to purchasers and we could recover our money by renting out the stadium to the club.

    Taking action like this might then deter owners from such unscrupulous practice n the future.
    No way. CPO have to be at market value.  You can't simply stick legislation through to cut through that for a one off situation as it would set a hugely dangerous precedent for the Govt to use it elsewhere the same way.
    I take your point, but for far too long governments have dithered and delayed in doing anything about the immoral way that professional football has operated in this country. Leaving it to govern its self at the expense of both the taxpayer and smaller companies that get ripped off subsidising certain wealthy peoples gambles on achieving a very unlikely success. When it suited the government acted swiftly to wrestle the hands of Chelsea from it’s owner. Legislation could be put in place to tackle this unique problem that wouldn’t have to impact on anything else. To do nothing and keep losing money seems to me to be weak leadership.
    One thing the Government could do is to instruct Revenue and Customs not to accept a deal. Then they (taxpayers) get paid in full, or bankruptcy and they are preferential creditors.
    I am shocked and very disappointed that the debt to R&C has been allowed to rise. It is standard practice that administrators ensure that suppliers etc get paid in full for anything they provide after the date of administration. This smacks of ripping off taxpayers and it is about time someone looked after the taxpayers of this Country who get the bill for all the failed banks and businesses and the people who failed just shrug and go home to their mansions.
    Do not worry the inland revenue come before all other creditors and the bulk of the assessment available. It is the small suppliers who come last and the employs.
  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,619
    It’s bollox. Any other business would be closed down and that’s the end of it. Football finances are fucked as it is and the authorities playing ball with all sorts of wheelers and dealers to save a moribund and cheating football club churns my stomach. Sad for the fans but somewhere along the line football has to be brought to heel.
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,212
    ShootersHillGuru said:
    It’s bollox. Any other business would be closed down and that’s the end of it. Football finances are fucked as it is and the authorities playing ball with all sorts of wheelers and dealers to save a moribund and cheating football club churns my stomach. Sad for the fans but somewhere along the line football has to be brought to heel.
    Ask not for whom the bell tolls
    It tolls for yee
  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,619
    Henry Irving said:
    ShootersHillGuru said:
    It’s bollox. Any other business would be closed down and that’s the end of it. Football finances are fucked as it is and the authorities playing ball with all sorts of wheelers and dealers to save a moribund and cheating football club churns my stomach. Sad for the fans but somewhere along the line football has to be brought to heel.
    Ask not for whom the bell tolls
    It tolls for yee
    Absolutely 
  • Gary Poole
    Gary Poole Posts: 1,874
    In 2019 Mel Morris owner of Derby County sold Pride Park to another company that he owned for £80m.

    This £80m was used to get round financial fair play rules designed to stop clubs overspending and gambled by Mel Morris on players and player wages in an attempt to reach the riches of the Premier League and make him more money and increase the value of his asset.

    This gamble came close but failed.

    In September 2021 Mel Morris put Derby County into administration and walked away from it.

    Currently Derby County owe Revenue and Customs approximately £30m

    Mel Morris still owns Pride Park.

    Why would we not want our government to act to make legislation and seize Pride Park from Mel Morris? The fact that we don’t already have laws in place to do this is shocking.

    Does anyone think what Mel Morris has done is good business practice and his asset in Pride Park should remain with him while we all pick up the bill for his gamble?





  • SomervilleAddick
    SomervilleAddick Posts: 3,575
    A company owned by Morris may be the titular owner of Pride Park, but there’s a charge on the asset to MSD Holdings, who it appears have have been lending money to Derby. Assuming neither Morris or Derby have the reported £15m to repay the loan, I think we can assume the effective owner in MSD. 

    So that’s £30m to Revenue, £15m to MSD plus football debts - then you need to fund the club. 
  • supaclive
    supaclive Posts: 6,514
    SomervilleAddick said:
    A company owned by Morris may be the titular owner of Pride Park, but there’s a charge on the asset to MSD Holdings, who it appears have have been lending money to Derby. Assuming neither Morris or Derby have the reported £15m to repay the loan, I think we can assume the effective owner in MSD. 

    So that’s £30m to Revenue, £15m to MSD plus football debts - then you need to fund the club. 
    Mel Morris personally is worth over £500m......
  • Swindon_Addick
    Swindon_Addick Posts: 1,620
    Going back a few years, it was a strict HMRC policy with football clubs that they would vote against a CVA that didn't offer 100%. So they might accept a delayed payment, but not a reduction in the total amount. If they were only owed 10% of the total, that wasn't a problem as they'd get outvoted and then they'd accept whatever the other creditors had voted to accept. If they were owed the majority of the unsecured debt, as seems to be the case here, that would mean 100% repayment or liquidation.

    I don't know whether that's still their policy, but there was a sound logic to it - if everyone knows that debts to HMRC will wreck any plans to sell the club, they will be more likely to pay their taxes. One side-effect of it, if it still applies, is that Mike Ashley will be disappointed if he's expecting to buy the club cheap because the administrators are desperate. 

    At one point, we were assuming that Kirchner must have reached a deal with HMRC, otherwise the deal would be too expensive. But since he seems not to be able to afford it, we probably can't assume that.
  • Gary Poole
    Gary Poole Posts: 1,874
    SomervilleAddick said:
    A company owned by Morris may be the titular owner of Pride Park, but there’s a charge on the asset to MSD Holdings, who it appears have have been lending money to Derby. Assuming neither Morris or Derby have the reported £15m to repay the loan, I think we can assume the effective owner in MSD. 

    So that’s £30m to Revenue, £15m to MSD plus football debts - then you need to fund the club. 
    MSD holdings lent money to Derby secured against Pride Park yet failed to secure repayment of that money when Pride Park was sold. If they lose tough shit. 

    This moving round of assets to retain wealth but pile on the debt to the tax payer should be clamped down on. Morris is a very wealthy man and should not be allowed to let us pay the cost of his gamble.
  • Sponsored links:



  • SomervilleAddick
    SomervilleAddick Posts: 3,575
    Gary Poole said:
    SomervilleAddick said:
    A company owned by Morris may be the titular owner of Pride Park, but there’s a charge on the asset to MSD Holdings, who it appears have have been lending money to Derby. Assuming neither Morris or Derby have the reported £15m to repay the loan, I think we can assume the effective owner in MSD. 

    So that’s £30m to Revenue, £15m to MSD plus football debts - then you need to fund the club. 
    MSD holdings lent money to Derby secured against Pride Park yet failed to secure repayment of that money when Pride Park was sold. If they lose tough shit. 

    This moving round of assets to retain wealth but pile on the debt to the tax payer should be clamped down on. Morris is a very wealthy man and should not be allowed to let us pay the cost of his gamble.
    Nope, the loans were secured against Pride Park after the sale - this was Morris guaranteeing the loans using “his” property. 

    I’m not sticking up for Morris - I’m just pointing out that his maneuvering has made this much more complicated for any buyer. 
  • letthegoodtimesroll
    letthegoodtimesroll Posts: 10,615
    edited June 2022
    supaclive said:
    SomervilleAddick said:
    A company owned by Morris may be the titular owner of Pride Park, but there’s a charge on the asset to MSD Holdings, who it appears have have been lending money to Derby. Assuming neither Morris or Derby have the reported £15m to repay the loan, I think we can assume the effective owner in MSD. 

    So that’s £30m to Revenue, £15m to MSD plus football debts - then you need to fund the club. 
    Mel Morris personally is worth over £500m......
    On paper ? And calculated on the net worth of companies that borrowed money from elsewhere (which will have to be repaid) and lent it on to Derby county or bought the ground (which sounds like may not be repaid?) ? Or is his net worth underpinned by non-DC loans and assets  ?
  • Gary Poole
    Gary Poole Posts: 1,874
    SomervilleAddick said:
    Gary Poole said:
    SomervilleAddick said:
    A company owned by Morris may be the titular owner of Pride Park, but there’s a charge on the asset to MSD Holdings, who it appears have have been lending money to Derby. Assuming neither Morris or Derby have the reported £15m to repay the loan, I think we can assume the effective owner in MSD. 

    So that’s £30m to Revenue, £15m to MSD plus football debts - then you need to fund the club. 
    MSD holdings lent money to Derby secured against Pride Park yet failed to secure repayment of that money when Pride Park was sold. If they lose tough shit. 

    This moving round of assets to retain wealth but pile on the debt to the tax payer should be clamped down on. Morris is a very wealthy man and should not be allowed to let us pay the cost of his gamble.
    Nope, the loans were secured against Pride Park after the sale - this was Morris guaranteeing the loans using “his” property. 

    I’m not sticking up for Morris - I’m just pointing out that his maneuvering has made this much more complicated for any buyer. 
    This manoeuvring just makes the whole thing more shady. The dept sits with the football club while secured against the asset of the stadium owned by a separate entity that is owned by the same person who owns the football club and that used to be owned by the football club. Yet when that football club goes into administration owing us millions. HMRC can’t recover any of their money from this asset, yet the person who created the dept can keep it minus paying off the loan secured against it which still sits with the football club.

    Boris Becker was recently sent to prison for hiding his wealth while claiming bankruptcy. This is surly very similar but done in a corporate setting.
  • Scoham
    Scoham Posts: 37,373
    Sounds very “Paul Elliot(tt)”, though the source is Nixon.
  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 35,994
    Scoham said:
    Sounds very “Paul Elliot(tt)”, though the source is Nixon.
    Saw something last week on twitter with a local Derby journo on some radio show who i'd assume is a lot closer to the situation than Nixon is and he said Kirchner had literally put no money in.
  • swordfish
    swordfish Posts: 4,234
    The  EFL are bending over backwards to accommodate Derby. Poor Bury fans watching the double standards being applied. Disgraceful!

    Think I'll lump a cheeky tenner on Derby to win the league when Ashley finally takes over and the EFL give them their points back! 
  • SomervilleAddick
    SomervilleAddick Posts: 3,575
    swordfish said:
    The  EFL are bending over backwards to accommodate Derby. Poor Bury fans watching the double standards being applied. Disgraceful!

    Think I'll lump a cheeky tenner on Derby to win the league when Ashley finally takes over and the EFL give them their points back! 
    Not yet - Bury reached a CVA (which, like administration is an insolvency event) and as a result, they were required to provide details on how they would complete the upcoming season. That meant meeting the terms of the CVA and producing a balanced budget. They couldn’t do that, even after the EFL allowed them to postpone several games. 

    Derby now have to provide evidence they can complete this season. Let’s see if they can. Based on the Bury example, Derby may be allowed to cancel some games if they can’t prove funding, but if they are allowed to drag this on past August, then I’ll agree they are being given different treatment. 
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,616
    If I've read correctly they only have 5 contracted players. One of those contracted players is Bielik which I dont believe they have paid Arsenal the full transfer fee yet. If that is true there should be no way that he plays for Derby this coming season. 
  • FishCostaFortune
    FishCostaFortune Posts: 10,773
    golfaddick said:
    If I've read correctly they only have 5 contracted players. One of those contracted players is Bielik which I dont believe they have paid Arsenal the full transfer fee yet. If that is true there should be no way that he plays for Derby this coming season. 
    Audacious comeback to the valley on?
  • swordfish
    swordfish Posts: 4,234
    SomervilleAddick said:
    swordfish said:
    The  EFL are bending over backwards to accommodate Derby. Poor Bury fans watching the double standards being applied. Disgraceful!

    Think I'll lump a cheeky tenner on Derby to win the league when Ashley finally takes over and the EFL give them their points back! 
    Not yet - Bury reached a CVA (which, like administration is an insolvency event) and as a result, they were required to provide details on how they would complete the upcoming season. That meant meeting the terms of the CVA and producing a balanced budget. They couldn’t do that, even after the EFL allowed them to postpone several games. 

    Derby now have to provide evidence they can complete this season. Let’s see if they can. Based on the Bury example, Derby may be allowed to cancel some games if they can’t prove funding, but if they are allowed to drag this on past August, then I’ll agree they are being given different treatment. 
    I was sure I'd read that an EFL rule change had been implemented as a result of Derby's predicament, but I must admit I couldn't tell you what it was. It wont change the destination of my tenner though! 😎
  • Sponsored links:



  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 21,242
    golfaddick said:
    If I've read correctly they only have 5 contracted players. One of those contracted players is Bielik which I dont believe they have paid Arsenal the full transfer fee yet. If that is true there should be no way that he plays for Derby this coming season. 
    Based on non payment, you'd think there would be a consequence to this, like his registration being returned to Arsenal, so they can sell him on again
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,839
    sam3110 said:
    golfaddick said:
    If I've read correctly they only have 5 contracted players. One of those contracted players is Bielik which I dont believe they have paid Arsenal the full transfer fee yet. If that is true there should be no way that he plays for Derby this coming season. 
    Based on non payment, you'd think there would be a consequence to this, like his registration being returned to Arsenal, so they can sell him on again
    You'd assume there must be FA/EFL/PL rules concerning non payment of transfer fees, especially if the selling club wants to take action. 
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,616
    I see the EFL are wanting more interaction & transparancy with the Administrators over any potential owners. 
  • Redrobo
    Redrobo Posts: 11,330
    golfaddick said:
    I see the EFL are wanting more interaction & transparancy with the Administrators over any potential owners. 
    Do you think they will understand what on earth is going on if they did?
    I think what they really mean is “can you let us know what is going on and explain the implications a bit quicker please as we are looking a bit stupid again”.
  • clive
    clive Posts: 19,442
    golfaddick said:
    I see the EFL are wanting more interaction & transparancy with the Administrators over any potential owners. 
    https://www.efl.com/news/2022/june/derby-county-efl-statement/
  • RedArmySE7
    RedArmySE7 Posts: 5,407
    clive said:
    golfaddick said:
    I see the EFL are wanting more interaction & transparancy with the Administrators over any potential owners. 
    https://www.efl.com/news/2022/june/derby-county-efl-statement/
    That seems like an awful lot of words saying pretty much nothing?!
  • Gary Poole
    Gary Poole Posts: 1,874
    RedArmySE7 said:
    clive said:
    golfaddick said:
    I see the EFL are wanting more interaction & transparancy with the Administrators over any potential owners. 
    https://www.efl.com/news/2022/june/derby-county-efl-statement/
    That seems like an awful lot of words saying pretty much nothing?!
    I think what it says between the lines is that the EFL think the administrators have portrayed an overly optimistic view of the possibility of a takeover and they are no longer going to trust just what they say. It is also perhaps a gee up to Mike Ashley and any others who might be interested, that now is the time to put in a serious offer or you might end up buying a Derby County that doesn’t have a place in the football league.
  • SouthWest_Addicks
    SouthWest_Addicks Posts: 6,307
    Hoping it won’t be like Bolton couple season back when they start the season getting punted 5-0 each game, and come end of the window they are allowed to sign 15 players and start to be competitive in matches.
  • swordfish
    swordfish Posts: 4,234
    You just know what's coming. Assuming they're on the fixture list, first up for us no doubt. We might even stand a chance!
  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,619
    swordfish said:
    You just know what's coming. Assuming they're on the fixture list, first up for us no doubt. We might even stand a chance!
    We’ll play them in February after they’ve just spent oodles during the January window. 

Categories

“Marketplace”