Maharan

1 minute ago, TexasRam said:

Not sure if that’s a joke or just a reaction to my post Alf 

Sounds like trash talk to me

Ah well done all. You've not disappointed! 

12 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

But if they get offered more than they get in liquidation (which is nothing) why would you turn that down especially if the court has the power to enforce that?

Your asking the wrong person. I'm a geologist, not a finance expert..  

8 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

They have to accept anything that’s better than liquidation there should be no need to go to Court to enforce that.

well clearly the people at the Athletic think otherwise. I don't know enough about the legal framework to offer an opinion either way. 

(They talk about a court ordered restructuring plan which involves something known as a 'cross-class cram down'. Basically slightly more more than they'd get via liquidation.) 

19 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Why would it be impossible to get a CVA? And why would Efl impose sanctions just because some awkward creditor screwed it up for everyone else?

I think they say that it's in relation to the major creditor being HMRC, and they're unlikely to accept a CVA, as they'll want every penny they are owed. I don't know the in's and out's, I'm just reporting on what the article says. 

1 minute ago, Ramarena said:

It’s all about getting on the creditors list. They can’t do it via the admins or court, so they try to strong arm the  EFL.

How do the EFL get them on the creditors list? Is that even possible? SUrely if the administrators or the courts can't do it, the EFL won't be able too? 

5 minutes ago, Ramos said:

I just think Gibsons goal is to ensure we do not get taken over until it can’t make any difference to this season - make sure we don’t do anything in jan to strengthen.

I can’t see it being anything else. He knows he can’t win, everybody knows there’s no case - the fact no one has put a proper reputable piece out there about it other than tabloid rubbish is cause no one really sees it as anything but posturing.

In BBC articles and sky etc it’s only ever a tibet at the bottom. Im surprised it’s taken this long for someone to finally ask a sports lawyer to offer their opinion - that as we all could of guessed essentially shuts it down. 

Let’s just hope this week is the week whether Appleby or Ashley - that we get a preferred bidder and start solving the mess and put these guys (Gibson and Wycombe) on the back burner. 

 

 

I think this makes a lot of sense to be honest. Perhaps it's just him trying to make sure no new signings can come in, and the case will magically disappear once the window is shut?

29 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Which positions are we most likely to recruit? I'm assuming we'll stick with our current 4411/4231 system with 2 players per position.

GK - Allsop, Roos, Marshall
RB - Byrne, Festy
CB - Jagielka, Stearman
CB - Davies, Cashin
LB - Forsyth, Buchanan, Williams
RM - Jozwiak, Sibley
CM - Bird, Tommo
CM - Shinnie, Bielik
LM - Knight
AM - Lawrence, Ravel
CF - Plange, Baldock, Kazim, Stretton

We're heavy at GK, LB and CF, but light on the wings. Unless we get good offers for players, this will be where our activity in the transfer window will be. Marshall should be looking for a new club. LB  is dependent on plans for next season - which two LBs do we plan to go into next season with. With Stretton's injury record, I don't expect any changes at CF.
The player(s) we'll be looking at will most certainly be wingers, which fits in with the Diallo links.

That’s a good breakdown, cheers. When it’s down in black and white it’s easier to see where the gaps are, and I agree, the squad does look light out wide

25 minutes ago, Indy said:

In fairness, we’ve been punished for what isn’t in the rules - specifically a requirement that straight-line amortisation is the only accepted method. 

I thought the point deduction was for going into administration, and then breaching FFP limits, not for using a different financial process? 

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

You mean the Forest who are currently Cat 1?

We certainly wouldn't have recruited Plange if we weren't Cat 1. How many of our own would have chosen Forest, Leicester, Villa, etc of we were only Cat 2 instead... Cat 1 is a must in our position. The question would be how much funding to put in whilst still retaining that status.

Haven’t they only recently gained cat 1 status? 
i don’t disagree with what you’re saying about the academy though, I would personally keep it going, but it’s not me who’ll be signing the cheques. 

2 minutes ago, NottsRammy said:

There actually could be a grain of truth in this and you never know i myself have thought the same thing . What if he really wants to rub salt in the wounds of newcastle fans . 

I’ll be honest with you, if was worth £6 billion, there’s no way I’d still be working or looking for new projects. I’d be living like a king and wouldn’t be worried about what Newcastle fans thought Of me. 
 

that said, that’s probably the reason why I’ll never be worth £6 billion..

4 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

But the academy is providing a conveyor belt of talent that will save us in having to buy players or enable us to sell for big money. The last thing that I would cut….

I agree with you, but if the club is losing money, and the new owners are unwilling to accept that, where else do you make savings? 
you could also argue that a Cat 1 academy isn’t strictly necessary. Look at Forest, and the academy players they’ve produced in recent years without Cat 1 accreditation. 
 

im not calling for the academy to be scrapped, I hope it isn’t. I just wonder where savings can be made to make the club more sustainable 

13 hours ago, Philmycock said:

Take yer pick....

Bob’s Stores 

Firetrap 

Flannels 

French Connection 

Game 

House of Fraser 

Sofa.com 

Jack Wills 

Eastern Mountain Sports 

Evans Cycles 

Gelert 

Heatons 

Sweatshop 

USC 

Sports Direct 

Agent Provocateur 

British Knights 

Carlton 

Donnay 

Everlast 

Gelert 

Gul 

Hot Tuna 

Kangol 

Karrimor 

LA Gear 

Lonsdale 

Muddyfox 

No Fear 

Slazenger 
 

....Stadium

The Agent Provocateur Sweatshop stadium.. has a ring to it. 

Just now, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

Good point but as we stand with the amount of players coming through into the first team a shrewd business man will see the value. It is one thing producing academy players for a championship team and another for PL team, even a very average one like Newcastle.

Absolutely, it’s like comparing apples with a traffic cone. It is the only remaining significant cost that can be cut though, so it’ll be interesting to see what happens. 
 

is losing the academy ideal? Far from it, but if it’s the price that needs to be paid for saving the club, then reluctantly I’m all for it. (Or at least reduce funding to below category 1. You don’t absolutely need cat 1 to produce promising players) 
 

1 minute ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

The thing about Mike Ashley is he knows how to run a profitable business (i share some of the points of @IslandExile about how he goes about it) and he knows that profitabilty and eventual growth in value of an asset with a view to sell means one thing only and that is PL. Providing you got a good manager you dont need hundreds of millions of investment to get out of the championship, we know that he wouldnt do that, but he has got the means to invest at championship level. Cost cutting isnt an option as there is really no fat to trim at the club, we are already at the bare bones. Putting all the points together. I think I can see that not only it would get us out of a really bad situation but could lead us onto better things.

If you’re looking at cost cutting, the first place to go will likely be the academy. Don’t think Newcastle funded theirs particularly well, but I could be wrong 

30 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

If this is true, then liquidation looks less likely/unlikely.

They’d be accepting offers to pay as much to all creditors, as soon as possible if liquidation was a distinct possibility, before the players registrations default to the EFL upon liquidation and only football creditors have access.

As others have mention preserving the value of the squad suggests there’s a deal in the offing!

?

I agree, it does sound less ominous.
 

I do think there will be some key players leaving which will be unpopular, but if it gets any deal over the finishing line (due to reduction in outstanding debt), then I think that’s the lesser of two evils. 

13 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

If Natalie Jackson is correct and Andy Appleby is good to go, Then he/his consortium aint concerned, The Admins wouldn't give a flying about a future court battle now would they?

They may be good to go, but they may also have submitted a cheeky low ball initial bid, we just don't know.

Just now, RadioactiveWaste said:

They really really really shouldn't have used the word imminently.

Yeah, it does look to be a poor choice of word! If I recall correctly, someone mentioned a bid of around 30 million a few dozen pages back? If that's the case, then it appears there is a long way to go to find some middle ground if an agreement is to be made. (If i got that wrong, i apologise, but I can't be bothered going through pages of puns to find the earlier comment sorry!)

I can't imagine that'll be a quick process. I genuinely don't think it's a case of the administrators dragging their heels, all the negotiations with both sides is going to take time. 

27 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

My guess is that the bids still don't meet what the administrators think the creditors will accept, even after the improved offers came back.

Leaving the administrators going between creditors trying to sell them on a deal that isn't enough then presumably at some point going back to AA and saying "we think we can do it for X but no less"

If nothing comes together from the buyer side and creditors side on £££££ then it'll end up going to the creditors to say "you taking it, or we liquidating the business?"

Obviously, there's the risk to the buyer posed by Boro and Wycombe and the stadium ownership that are complications as well.

We're not a straightforward purchase/rescue and obviously, the bidders want to buy it for as little as possible.

I think you're spot on. It wouldn't surprise me if the initial offer is well below what the admins / creditors would hope for, so now it's a case of trying to come to a point which is mutually acceptable. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a little longer than we'd hope, but it is the nature of the beast, and it sounds like a really messy situation. 

5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Perhaps. At the moment the admin team haven’t secured a buyer for us yet either.

Are they not asking a reasonable price? According to Gibson we are being offered at a giveaway price.

Maybe they can't offer the club at a reasonable price because of the state it's been left in! 

18 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

Please tell me the bookies odds claim is true

 

That would make for an interesting case in a formal setting! Ray Wistone as an expert witness maybe..

18 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Well considering some people were saying a single winding up application was a sign we were in trouble, Fawaz had them on a weekly basis. How would he have coped with the financial impact of COVID?

It's immaterial though isn't it. Mel decided to stop paying the bills and put the club into administration. Fawaz was a mess, no doubt about it, but he didn't decide to stop paying the bills. That's the point really, other clubs might have cash problems, but they aren't in administration

12 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

I think team spirit is crucial to our success but Rooney has repeatedly stated the importance of the January window to strengthen the squad.

We would be stuffed if Jagielka left and if players like Lawrence go they will need replacing.

I don’t think we need four or five, just a CB cover player and a different style forward to replace Baldock.

Do you honestly think there will be any incoming players, never mind 4-5? I honestly can't see any new bodies added to the squad, even if players leave  

It’s working with them coming off the bench at the minute. Why mess with a winning formula?

11 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Over two years I think. Or £30m this year. Maybe that’s about the going rate.  

I have no idea what the going rate is, but it’s interesting to note Southampton, an established premier league club, who own their own stadium, were today bought for £100 million. 
it kind of puts into perspective the Challenges in getting things sorted at Derby.

43 minutes ago, Barney1991 said:

Don’t forget the 30 million is just for the club as the stadium is separate so possibly 30 million for club will pay hmrc and other creditors and then 20 million for the stadium pays off msd so will be 50 million altogether. The football creditors etc arsenal and whoever else have to be paid in full within 2 years is it so we could pay them possibly in the summer with selling players hopefully is brought 

£30 million won’t pay of the football creditors and HMRC unless they’ve agreed to a substantial discount, never mind the other creditors