Wigan decision no later than July 28

Administration doesn't avoid your creditors. Administration gives a company protection from action by creditors (typically a winding up order) while it reorganised its business and seeks new finance. At some stage it still has to face its creditors. Often most creditors do better from a company going into administration than from it being wound up - HMRC and banks usually grab everything in a winding up, while smaller creditors get very little. At least after administration smaller companies might get something.
Ok acknowledged not avoid as such. Accent on the might by the way. And that time the creditors can lose in not being able to take action against a company that owes them money could be the time it takes them to go under, starved of cash themselves.
 
Ok acknowledged not avoid as such. Accent on the might by the way. And that time the creditors can lose in not being able to take action against a company that owes them money could be the time it takes them to go under, starved of cash themselves.

If the company that supplies pies to a football club (for example) has not been paid, then the chances are that a few banks and HMRC have not been paid either. The pie company can bring a winding up order but the preferential creditors will get paid first. The smaller creditor companies are always hit harder, it's an unfortunate fact of the way the law is.
 
If the company that supplies pies to a football club (for example) has not been paid, then the chances are that a few banks and HMRC have not been paid either. The pie company can bring a winding up order but the preferential creditors will get paid first. The smaller creditor companies are always hit harder, it's an unfortunate fact of the way the law is.
I appreciate that. In fact Krasner has said HMRC are owed £5m and small creditors can expect 25p in the £ on sale.
 
So how was Derby’s ground valued in accounts as an asset at £40m and shortly afterwards sold for £81m then? Genuine question, I’m not a RICS qualified valuer or an accountant. Or a lawyer.

Because asset values shown in a company's accounts are not necessarily up to date, and nor are they required to be. It's generally good practice to revalue major assets every three years or so but this can have tax implications so many companies don't do it. The value of Derby's ground may not have ever been revalued since it was built. However assets have to be revalued when they are sold, so the sale value may reflect 20+ years of property inflation.
 
Because asset values shown in a company's accounts are not necessarily up to date, and nor are they required to be. It's generally good practice to revalue major assets every three years or so but this can have tax implications so many companies don't do it. The value of Derby's ground may not have ever been revalued since it was built. However assets have to be revalued when they are sold, so the sale value may reflect 20+ years of property inflation.
Fair enough👍. Why are they being investigated over it then? Again, a genuine question. Unless it is to do with where the money came from? ie Henry Gabay who is under investigation regarding tax issues...?
 
Because asset values shown in a company's accounts are not necessarily up to date, and nor are they required to be. It's generally good practice to revalue major assets every three years or so but this can have tax implications so many companies don't do it. The value of Derby's ground may not have ever been revalued since it was built. However assets have to be revalued when they are sold, so the sale value may reflect 20+ years of property inflation.
That's a lot of may's and could's. Derby need to prove it was a fair evaluation.....if they get away with it Gibson should do exactly the same to give us 80m to sort the squad out this summer
 
That's a lot of may's and could's. Derby need to prove it was a fair evaluation.....if they get away with it Gibson should do exactly the same to give us 80m to sort the squad out this summer
No. They need to clamp down on what is nothing but cheating.
 
Don't forget Derby also have Wayne "32Red" Rooney as well. Which while might not technically be breaching the rules because they've found a loophole, is still cheating in my book.

I know they won't get punished for it, but that loophole needs closing. It's another ***take from the biggest cheats in the league.
 
Don't forget Derby also have Wayne "32Red" Rooney as well. Which while might not technically be breaching the rules because they've found a loophole, is still cheating in my book.

I know they won't get punished for it, but that loophole needs closing. It's another ***take from the biggest cheats in the league.
Is there anything in the rules to stop Gibson employing players through bulkhaul as 'haulage consultants' on say 40k a week whilst they are also employed by mfc on 5k per week? So only 5k would count towards ffp, Just wondering if that would be a way to compete with the cheats, at the moment we're not on a level playing field.
 
Is there anything in the rules to stop Gibson employing players through bulkhaul as 'haulage consultants' on say 40k a week whilst they are also employed by mfc on 5k per week? So only 5k would count towards ffp, Just wondering if that would be a way to compete with the cheats, at the moment we're not on a level playing field.

I assume there is or Derby would be all over it like a rash.

Similarly why can't Ben Gibson be paid £5k a week and in a completely unrelated event generous uncle Steve just happens to give him a cheque for £1.5m for his birthday every year?
 
Is there anything in the rules to stop Gibson employing players through bulkhaul as 'haulage consultants' on say 40k a week whilst they are also employed by mfc on 5k per week? So only 5k would count towards ffp, Just wondering if that would be a way to compete with the cheats, at the moment we're not on a level playing field.

I don't know about FFP rules, but HMRC would have a field day with that one. If you are employed by company X then you are expected to work for company X, not company Y. Tax efficiency isn't a business purpose. Derby were getting money from some betting company in a sponsorship deal for Rooney, they didn't pretend he was working for the betting company.
 
I don't know about FFP rules, but HMRC would have a field day with that one. If you are employed by company X then you are expected to work for company X, not company Y. Tax efficiency isn't a business purpose. Derby were getting money from some betting company in a sponsorship deal for Rooney, they didn't pretend he was working for the betting company.
What do HMRC care whether the person actually does any work? As long as they pay the correct tax? There's loads of people get paid as consultants for very little work. I'm sure some spreadsheets could be knocked up showing how productive Ben Gibson is at maximising efficiencies within a difficult haulage market. Even better, Woody could put together a PowerPoint!
 
What do HMRC care whether the person actually does any work? As long as they pay the correct tax? There's loads of people get paid as consultants for very little work. I'm sure some spreadsheets could be knocked up showing how productive Ben Gibson is at maximising efficiencies within a difficult haulage market. Even better, Woody could put together a PowerPoint!

Because Bulkhaul paying a load of people who don't work at Bulkhaul would artificially increase Bulkhaul's costs and reduce their profits. HMRC is all over that scenario.
 
I see Wigans preferred bidder has already pulled out. That doesnt look good for them atm. Possibly heading for -15pts next season.
 
From what I can remember on Derby's stadium sale, before it was "sold" they had grand designs for development and premium concerts which doubled its valuation based on potential future earnings.

I'm off to sell my house for £10 million because I might find a 4 foot diamond in my garden.
 
Professional valuation standards have always been a source of controversy. In the property boom of the late 1980s many valuers were in the pockets of lenders (Some were owned by them!!) and it was no surprise that valuations were enhanced for convenience. It was when so many fraudulent cases ensued coupled with remarkable valuation reductions in the recession that a science ethic came in with independent panels and professional indemnity insurance became more expensive.

These days an overblown or inflated valuation of a real estate asset should be identified . Ive no knowledge of the basis of the sudden increase in valuation of Pride Park or indeed who the professional independent valuers were but if this is in dispute the facts should or ought to come out.

it is worth reading again Derby’s official statement on tthe matter in January this year. In it they state that the EFL accepted in writing the valuation done by completely independent valuers. If these valuers cannot be proved to be fraudulent or unduly influenced or downright incompetent then I cant see a case pressing against the Rams sticking sadly.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dcfc.co.uk/amp/news/2020/01/club-statement-17th-january-2020
 
Last edited:
Id like to know who the valuers were. I cant find their name anywhere published. However I do know the rent Derby now pay to the new 3rd party Mel Morris property company owner is well short of a valuation of £80m. They yield is about 1.8% which is well under market rate.

Apparently Derby are adamant that the rent reflects the amount of use the football club gets from the stadium, which amounts to an average of 30 full days each year when they host their home matches. In other words taking the ****.
 
Makes for an easier division next season if it's Chalrton and Wigan staying up instead of Derby and Sheffield Wednesday.
 
Back
Top