Well, we all remember Derby fans fighting tooth and nail for Bury, owing to the whole "football family" thing, right? And their financial issues were only a fraction of Derby's.
What's that you say? Derby did nothing for Bury? Surely they were not still bitter over the 6-0 cup final?
I think the debacles of the last two Winter Olympics and the light slappage given to very rich and influential Russia over doping their athletes (this time a 15 year old!) and the awarding of the World Cup to a nation with no football heritage, needing slave labour to build their stadiums suggests to that few sporting bodies are fit for purpose beyond claiming their freebies and jollies.
Rob mentioned the negotiations with creditors such as HMRC. I think it’s a backwards way of handling the debt from HMRC’s perspective. If they agree, for example, to accept 10% but then someone like Mike Ashley comes in (who could afford to pay all or most of the debt) surely that’s not fair on the tax payer. If someone like the Derby County Trust were taking over the club then I would expect a lower percentage than if a millionaire was taking over.
It’s even more farcical that Mel owns the stadium still and will get money for it either in the form of an outright purchase or a lease agreement. That money should go towards paying off any outstanding HMRC amount owed after the takeover is complete.
As I understood it, the HMRC debt was in the main monies deducted from staff/player salaries for PAYE and NI, then not passed on the HMRC. In what world is this not theft? How can this ever be negotiated away?
There must be an alternative word or phrase to describe the mechanics - no theft has taken place and “unlawfully withheld” doesn’t sit right in a situation which seemingly allows offenders to negotiate a potentially derisory level of payment.
@Chris said:
Not sure I follow the logic of theft. Who has been stolen from?
HMRC as it was collected on behalf of HMRC but not handed over. That's how the tax system works.
Everyone of us , it’s about time HMRC stood up for those of us that pay our taxes in full and only accept 100% of the bill, if they don’t they are subsidising derby and giving free range to future cheaters.
@Chris said:
Not sure I follow the logic of theft. Who has been stolen from?
You buy a dining table & chairs for £75 from Blundells. You pay the guy that calls every Saturday your agreed 2/6d, he jots a note in his book, then trousers the money and continues to do this for 18 months without ever passing your money on, then does a runner. Blundells come knocking and snatch back your table and chairs for non-payment. Did the tally man not steal from you?
@Chris said:
Not sure I follow the logic of theft. Who has been stolen from?
You buy a dining table & chairs for £75 from Blundells. You pay the guy that calls every Saturday your agreed 2/6d, he jots a note in his book, then trousers the money and continues to do this for 18 months without ever passing your money on, then does a runner. Blundells come knocking and snatch back your table and chairs for non-payment. Did the tally man not steal from you?
That would take 600 weeks to pay for the table and chairs! Not a very good commercial transaction entered into by Blundells.
About HMRC seeking to wind up Liberty Steel with more than 2000 jobs at risk. Tax debt £26M
If HMRC are following this route why would they agree 25p in the £ for a football club with a prospective multi millionaire buyer? Be disgusting if they did
I raised this point on here a while ago about misappropriation of revenue collected on behalf of HMRC being embezzlement, which comes under tax fraud.
I can see no justification for any club being allowed to continue plying their trade, unless their debts are paid in full. At which point did become acceptable to expect creditors to subsidise a clubs existence?
@Chris is correct in that Derby not paying HMRC probably isn't theft. Far better for us to be arguing that t was fraud committed by Mr M Morris of Derby County and go after him - as a company director - for payment or a custodial sentence IMHO.
About HMRC seeking to wind up Liberty Steel with more than 2000 jobs at risk. Tax debt £26M
If HMRC are following this route why would they agree 25p in the £ for a football club with a prospective multi millionaire buyer? Be disgusting if they did
To the best of my knowledge and 20 years experience of dealing with insolvencies and administrations HMRC will not negotiate a reduction in what is owed, they will negotiate a repayment schedule that will ensure an organisation can successfully exit administrations and HMRC recover ALL monies owed over time.
My gut feel is HMRC are likely to agree a 3-5 year repayment schedule for the current debt as this is means an annual payment broadly equivalent to the Championship solidarity & TV fees each club receives. The Administrators could then claim a victory in reducing the headline debt (at least in terms of media consumption by the average thick as shit DCFC fan).
@Erroll_Sims said:
, they will negotiate a repayment schedule that will ensure an organisation can successfully exit administrations and HMRC recover ALL monies owed over time.
My gut feel is HMRC are likely to agree a 3-5 year repayment schedule for the current debt
What commercial lender would reasonably consider lending DCFC £30M without something significant, such as property, as security? If they can’t find a purchaser to cover the tax debt or commercial lender to do that why should the taxpayers through HMRC be foolish enough to be “lender of last resort”?
Comments
Well, we all remember Derby fans fighting tooth and nail for Bury, owing to the whole "football family" thing, right? And their financial issues were only a fraction of Derby's.
What's that you say? Derby did nothing for Bury? Surely they were not still bitter over the 6-0 cup final?
I think the debacles of the last two Winter Olympics and the light slappage given to very rich and influential Russia over doping their athletes (this time a 15 year old!) and the awarding of the World Cup to a nation with no football heritage, needing slave labour to build their stadiums suggests to that few sporting bodies are fit for purpose beyond claiming their freebies and jollies.
and celebrating a win or late draw 'like they've won the cup'. We are celebrating a win or late draw.
Today is the anniversary of a match that ultimately condemned us to relegation. Arguably.
Is finding someone who's a big enough mug to buy them not a barrier?
Rob mentioned the negotiations with creditors such as HMRC. I think it’s a backwards way of handling the debt from HMRC’s perspective. If they agree, for example, to accept 10% but then someone like Mike Ashley comes in (who could afford to pay all or most of the debt) surely that’s not fair on the tax payer. If someone like the Derby County Trust were taking over the club then I would expect a lower percentage than if a millionaire was taking over.
It’s even more farcical that Mel owns the stadium still and will get money for it either in the form of an outright purchase or a lease agreement. That money should go towards paying off any outstanding HMRC amount owed after the takeover is complete.
As I understood it, the HMRC debt was in the main monies deducted from staff/player salaries for PAYE and NI, then not passed on the HMRC. In what world is this not theft? How can this ever be negotiated away?
Not sure I follow the logic of theft. Who has been stolen from?
HMRC as it was collected on behalf of HMRC but not handed over. That's how the tax system works.
Me, you and everyone else paying taxes.
There must be an alternative word or phrase to describe the mechanics - no theft has taken place and “unlawfully withheld” doesn’t sit right in a situation which seemingly allows offenders to negotiate a potentially derisory level of payment.
Everyone of us , it’s about time HMRC stood up for those of us that pay our taxes in full and only accept 100% of the bill, if they don’t they are subsidising derby and giving free range to future cheaters.
You buy a dining table & chairs for £75 from Blundells. You pay the guy that calls every Saturday your agreed 2/6d, he jots a note in his book, then trousers the money and continues to do this for 18 months without ever passing your money on, then does a runner. Blundells come knocking and snatch back your table and chairs for non-payment. Did the tally man not steal from you?
He definitely did @HomerLone.
No one is arguing that it’s not a debt that they haven’t paid, but that doesn’t make it theft just because you want it to be.
That would take 600 weeks to pay for the table and chairs! Not a very good commercial transaction entered into by Blundells.
Strange thing to want to argue about at all @Chris . Shall we just say @HomerLone meant what part of that is not 'very bad'?
What’s 2/6d, please sir (= @poop)
It just seems odd to insist that something is theft when it isn’t.
If HMRC are following this route why would they agree 25p in the £ for a football club with a prospective multi millionaire buyer? Be disgusting if they did
Define theft
I raised this point on here a while ago about misappropriation of revenue collected on behalf of HMRC being embezzlement, which comes under tax fraud.
I can see no justification for any club being allowed to continue plying their trade, unless their debts are paid in full. At which point did become acceptable to expect creditors to subsidise a clubs existence?
It was not theft or fraud, the money was simply resting in Derby's bank account as they had lost HMRC's details.
It's defined by the 1968 Theft Act. See here for more detail
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
@Chris is correct in that Derby not paying HMRC probably isn't theft. Far better for us to be arguing that t was fraud committed by Mr M Morris of Derby County and go after him - as a company director - for payment or a custodial sentence IMHO.
Wayne Rooney's not in charge of Liberty Steel!
To the best of my knowledge and 20 years experience of dealing with insolvencies and administrations HMRC will not negotiate a reduction in what is owed, they will negotiate a repayment schedule that will ensure an organisation can successfully exit administrations and HMRC recover ALL monies owed over time.
My gut feel is HMRC are likely to agree a 3-5 year repayment schedule for the current debt as this is means an annual payment broadly equivalent to the Championship solidarity & TV fees each club receives. The Administrators could then claim a victory in reducing the headline debt (at least in terms of media consumption by the average thick as shit DCFC fan).
What commercial lender would reasonably consider lending DCFC £30M without something significant, such as property, as security? If they can’t find a purchaser to cover the tax debt or commercial lender to do that why should the taxpayers through HMRC be foolish enough to be “lender of last resort”?
It wasn’t assault officer he simultaneously fell as I brought my fist up in a gesture of worker’s solidarity and then it happened again
Just punching the air near a steward.