RAM1966

All the complaints saying DC is another mad Mel is ridiculous.

He made LR interim manager as he was clearly not sure if he was the right man, much better decision than the 3-5 year contracts MM was handing out to sack a manager a short time into contracts.  It was a astute business decision if you ask me, Warne appears to know his way out of this Division so a 1 or 2 Year contract could be a wise move if its him to be appointed.  

I'd suggest we should all calm the fook down and see who is appointed and how they perform, if this goes belly up DC has invested £53M, therefore he's the one with the most to lose.

Regarding the Ashley rumours, I've heard he is only interested in buying us once we are back in the Championship.

In DC I trust, our away form simply was not good enough and LR did not seem to have the answers, we also need to hit the Onion bag a bit more often at home too.  If LR stays that's great as he is without doubt a great coach, if he goes, I wish him all the best, but, I think he needs to cut his teeth with a smaller club.

3 hours ago, CBX1985 said:

You get clear liquidity, which allows investment in other  assets (i.e. Players).  Most businesses rent their operating base for this reason (from M and S stores to big accountancy HQs).  Why tie that much capital up when someone else can and you can rent at stable rates?  This is the entire operating model of the commercial property sector. 

I agree buying makes sense for a new DCFC owner, but only just if at fair value (and only if I had the clear working capital to do it).  If I were buying the club, I would not see the Ground as THE asset.  The Club and the value of supporter spending is, to enable potential promotions to higher leagues to capitalise on TV money.

I've seen people on this thread say that we need to own the ground to capitalise on things like corporate events and the like.  No.  You can do this under a good lease hold - the owner gets a per annum fee for you having unfettered access.

I do not see how this can realistically be compared with running a normal business.  Football does not operate at a profit for starters.  Football teams do not tend to move from one ground to another like other businesses, so do not need that type of level of fluidity.  Therfore a mortgage at the same rate as the lease would make far more business sense.

I've ran my own business and leased a building for the reasons you have said, which is true in a 'normal' business. I would look to move it when market rates decreased and stay put when it suited by having break clauses in the lease agreements.

Football is very different and success can often be decided by a flip of a coin, look at how we played QPR off the park, we were the far better team only to lose in the dying mins.

Large investments in football players, do not have the same chance of success that a tech company would have, by investing £ms in new software development over purchasing a premises to sell to a 3rd party.  That 100% makes sense.

We've seen how over investments turn out, throwing money widly with a scattergun approach does not garantee succes, you can only spend what FFP regs will allow too!

2 hours ago, CBX1985 said:

I'm not sure I agree.  The Ground would receive rental payments of c£1m pa.  You are effectively paying an upfront fee to avoid that.  It is a non saleable asset, as was proven - it has one use for one buyer; you can't do anything else with it.

At a big enough discount, an offer would make sense (a long lease is in many ways as good as purchase to free up capital - hence the secondary market in commercial property).  He just bid non-commercially, unlike Ashley (who was commercial); and did not have Clowes' love fort the club which could allow that.

It made no sense and was too good to be true. There is a reason that is red-flag #1.

You could lease for 20 years at a £1m a year, but what have you got at the end of it?  Do not forget the book value of the ground was £81.1M when it was valued a few years ago.  Its probably not worth that much now we are a Lg1 club, but, its certainly worth a lot more than £23M.  

So how come all of the other bids included the ground?  I spoke to one of the potential buyers who said there was no deal that was viable, which did not include the ground (at the cut price it was sold for), why do you think Mel sold the ground well below book value?  It was to offset the fact that the club on its own was insolvent and not viable with all the masses of debt. 

We now know that Kirchner didn't have a pot to p!ss in and was struggling to raise the funds which is why he decided to go for the club only.  

When DC comes to sell the club, I imagine as soon as we are back in the Championship, the club will be worth far more with its own stadium, than it would without.

On 26/08/2022 at 00:01, kevinhectoring said:

Makes good sense if you get a lease on decent terms. Could massively increase your return on capital 

Not when you are paying circa £30m for 5 players.  The ground was worth far more the £23m...

The only viable option included the ground, every option/bid included the Stadium apart from Kirchner's Monopoly ?.....

Sorry but when you are buying an insolvent business, you need to buy the biggest tangible asset too, which was on offer far  under its true value....

I'm not sure we will ever know what Kirchner's plans to fund us actually were, at first glance it looks like a 3 amigos style purchase.  Maybe the investigations and enquiries to come in the US, may actually shed some light on where this money was going to come from.

100% a dodged bullet and I think we would have ended up liquidated.

On 18/08/2022 at 09:35, Strider said:

A simple solution to prevent this type of situation is for any administrators or sellers to insist on seeing the money in a UK based account. Would stop the Kirchner's, Derventio's and Alonso's of this world. Just seeing the money in a random account isn't enough.

They should go futher, the money should be deposited with the EFL with a agreement to purchase with large penalty clauses should the purchaser pull out without a goog reason.

On 23/08/2022 at 10:55, duncanjwitham said:

I still think it was unlikely it was anything like this.  He couldn't borrow (much) money against us because without owning the stadium, there was nothing to secure it against.  Money laundering or similar seems unlikely too, because you don't do it with an international border in between (because of the enhanced checks that take place on transfers), or a company that's being monitored more extensively than normal (you've got FFP reporting, plus enforced business plans and any other fallout/follow-up from exiting admin).  Any weird payments in or out are going to get flagged up relatively quickly.  And if his intention was something like trying to and drain excess funds out of the club to fund his lifestyle, then I'm not sure there's going to be enough excess funds to make that worthwhile, especially if he was intending to carry on making payments to creditors over the next 2 or 3 years.

The only explanation that makes any kind of sense to me is that he genuinely wanted to buy us, probably because he thought owning a football club would be a cool thing to add to his flash lifestyle.  And then he either changed his mind when he realised the true costs, or he genuinely couldn't transfer the money (whether that be because of money laundering checks, or the money was no longer "available" to him, or whatever).

This is why purchasing the club without the stadium did not make sense.  I said this at the tome and got slated.  Itcwas clear as day he did not have the money yo do both and therefore a poor choice by the Administrators.

No wonder Rooney has peed off to the States while this all blows over....

5 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

This whole thing still confuses me. Surely CK at knew that at some point he needed to hand over a significant amount of cash to be owner of Derby County and also have money to fund it for a while, to protect the initial outlay. He must have a severe mental-health issue, bordering on immense delusion, or he probably tried to make some quick profit with the investors money, probably in Crypto, and lost it all without actually realising.

I struggle to believe he went through all this with the intention of pulling out last minute and ruining his name and reputation.

I find it intriguing. There's much more to it than he's a chancing con-man!

Mental health issues could be his get out of Jail free card.........

Good to see a decent performance both halves was refreshing to see, the fitness is clearly building.   

I think we ned McGoldrick starting asap.....  I feel for Collins, he's been so close, I think once that first goal goes in, he will starting banging them in regularly.

I'm glad Kirchner will be about £2M out of pocket, his messing about cost us vital players and in the end nearly forced us out of business, I'm just grateful for DCs charitable act to save us.

I hope he does time for his dealings, swanning around in a private jet while his employees go unpaid for months.....

7 minutes ago, sage said:

a) Pre season started 2 weeks behind everyone else

b( No players aged 22-29

c) we don't have a full and fully fit bench 

These issues were inevitable and i'm surprised at so many supporters who can't understand this. 

 

Our biggest issue for me that we can control is the front three/four not holding on to the ball to allow the back six/seven to move forwards then maintain possession.   

I appreciate we've not had as much time to prepare, if its down to fitness that's fair enough.

As I've said, its not a major criticism, its just an observation that LR seems to be at the moment struggling with addressing second half tactical changes.

I'd really like LR to succeed, he's stayed when he could of gone to Blackpool.  He's still learning as a manager and 6 points out of 9 is not a bad return either, so Im not lambasting him just yet.

I do not want to get on anyones back at such an early stage of the season, but, our second half performances seem to be lacking.

Yesterday we hardly got out of our own half after the break.  Maybe its because the players are running out of steam, or could it be that teams are working out how to makes tweaks to play better against us? I'd suggest the later.

I hope LR works on this, because the game last week we really should of won, but, the second half we looked like a different team.

Yesterday we had a nervous 30+ mins trying to hang on.  Like I say, I'm not knocking LR so early,but, I think he needs to be able to address HT adjustments made by the opposition better than we currently are.  

COYR

8 hours ago, dog said:

Makes you realise that whatever happens this season it could have been far, far worse....

100% bang on the debts would have got worse and it would have been curtains for sure, we are very lucky David Clowes has been kind enough to pay over the odds (Event after writing off some of the debt), for us when we were clearly insolvent.  The £53M he paid was a championship value not a League 1 Club value.

I really hope for David Clowes that we go back up and he sees a return on his investment. 

On 25/07/2022 at 21:27, Gaspode said:

I was subjected to a police dog shoving its nose into my groin when we played Stoke a couple of years ago. I thought it was just being friendly so I reached down to scratch it’s head only to be given a right telling off by the accompanying bolshy policewoman. Perhaps if she’d explained it was a sniffer dog and asked if I minded being searched I might have reacted more favourably….

That's part and parcel of security at football matches, normally sniffers are not trained to be aggressive, that is of course unless you show aggression towards the handler.  The dog was just checking which clan you were from..... ?

On 25/07/2022 at 22:40, uttoxram75 said:

Security, stewards and Police know the games which have higher risk of pyros, they take a decision not to search. Its all too much hassle to actually do summat nowadays. Thats why they make new laws, instead of enforcing current ones, to make them look like they're doing summat.

Notts police have known for years that the residents of that stand above the away end will throw things at the fans below them but someone, I presume the match day commander, has taken the decision to allow it. New rules or laws won't stop it, throwing people out and arresting them will.

 

Its the reason I do not go to Forest away, odur urine is not my favourite aftershave.........

7 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said:

I said in a previous post...that the internet is a wonderful tool for + or - projects, It's documented that large companies were chucking his company millions of $s, I assume they went into the companies bank account, A simple print off with references, Bank statements, Company credentials, All the things that's needed to move forward, It's been said that Q, EFL and even Nixon "SAW THE FUNDS" what did they see...£23million pounds stacked against a wall or a bank statement saying there's money there and has been transferred. 

Now for an old timer like me I can struggle with the intricacies of the Internet, But there's organisations out there...legitimate/illegal that can produce miracles out of thin air.

My question is this...what did the 3 above see?  

Nixon claimed to have seen the funds, the reality is probably different, why would Kirchner show a red top journalist the funds, no benefit in it.  Nixon has regularly been economical with the truth and tries to look more in the know than he actually is, Nixon assured us all that there was nothing to worry about, he called out all of the critics that saw what was coming. 

Nixon has gone awfully quite regarding Derby as he knows he's been made to look a complete tool by Kirchner.  

The club could sell match tickets a the discounted ST rate match buy match for all previous STR holders, lets face it most are not going to stop going.

Surely something can be done to ensure everyone gets to the game?

26 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

I never said you did, Have you ever played cricket when the crease is covered in Bostic...as you're on it fella

I have played cricket when I was much younger, I do not think I'm on a sticky wicket at all.  There is nothing wrong with having an opinion and my opinion is if that if the Feds take him to court they will have enough evidence to put him away.  I will be watching with interest and I hope he goes down! 

1 minute ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Equally calling someone a crook without proof is slanderous in the eyes of the law, Several burglaries...No you've done something illegal, You become a crook once convicted.

Where have I called him a crook?

13 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Ah so not a crook then...

The saying goes innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law, that said if you commit several burglaries your a crook you've just not been caught yet.  I'm sure he will have his day in court and my money is on him getting some free food and accommodation at the US Governments expense. 

Only time will tell though ? 

Its not for you to decide how many posts I make a day or the content, there is never an excuse to bully someone of the internet.

Your comment mild or not its an insult, posts like yours are passive aggressive in an attempt to stop people posting their views. 

It would be boring if we all had the same opinion, people should be allowed to post, its simple if you do not like mine or others posts place me on ignore, but there is no excuse or need to try and close down debate.

#stopcancelculture #uncancelled 

7 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Absolutely right RAM1966...they went to jail as the court sentenced them, Tell me has CK been to court yet?...yes or no

Give them time Rodney, give them time! ?

15 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

LOL at you playing the victim. 

Nobody was 'turned on' for having doubts about Kirchner, or sensibly voicing them. 

They may have been turned on for being attention seeking little twerps re-stating their position about 6 times a day in increasingly obnoxious ways, however.

Getting the end result right also doesn't excuse or make correct everything else that was said along the way.

No need for the insults.............. 

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

Pretty amazing, leaving a salesman in charge of a fast growing VC company and that person having sole control of company bank accounts.
I doubt CK is crook though. I think he’s probably more delusional and naive. We’ll see ...

 Being naive does not save you from jail and financial fraudulent activity usually when proven carries a prison sentence.  The courts will not see it that way, if he has been using company money to fund a lavish life style and been reckless with the investors money he's in big trouble.  He simply cannot sign that off lavish spending when the company has investors, they have a right to see a return on their money, it not acceptable for some chancer to take their money and spunk it all on a private jet..........

59 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

I doubt he's a crook for the simple reason he's done nothing wrong...yet, Everything he's done he's signed it off himself, He becomes a crook when the relevant authorities go after him, Bring him to court if there's a case, Found guilty and sentenced...then he becomes a crook? 

The 3 Amigos signed off their own £250K bonus each when taking over the club, they went to jail if you recall.... 

56 minutes ago, WystonRam said:

It is still baffling that Preston saw through him so quickly, yet most of us failed to believe that they were correct.(me included)

There were quite a few of us who spoke out and roundly turned on......

25 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The administrators are legally obliged to accept the best offer for the creditors. The evidence presented to them (the EFL, and other parties) must have shown he had the money. The latest article from Forbes somewhat hints at why the money got held up.

As I told you several times in the past, the financial difference between 25% and 35% was only about £1m. An investor would have been better off investing Y2 and Y3 money into something else and cash in on those investments when Y2 and Y3 instalments were due. They would have made more than just £1m in interest off those investments.

And you rightfully got slated by my for the exact reasons I gave.

Let's not forget well regarded administrators have come out and said they wouldn't have dared touched this case due to the complexities. Sure, Q could have done some things better (a lot better?), but still managed to get us out of admin in around 282 days.

Wigan, with much lower debt and many more saleable assets took 272 days (and several PBs), yet didn't come under anywhere near as much ridicule.

Portsmouth were in admin for 427 days (2012-2013). Trevor Birch was the administrator for that one.

So I should have been slated, at the time as said I had concerns and felt it it would not go through.  My concerns turned out to be legitimate ones as KC has been proved to be the tyre kicker I suspected.

Sorry but the bid had to be credible and it clearly wasn't.  Look at what Kirchner was alledgey buying for a fee north of £28m.  5 players, golden share.  What he wasn't getting was a ground valued at approx £50-60m, he wasn't getting the rebue from the hospitality, concourses etc.  Therefore his business plan was lacking, that revenue could have been used to run the club.

Its madness, have you owned and run a business?  I have are Kirchners bid had red flags all over it, admin and EFL have done an awfull job.

Here is a propostion for you, Illput a house up for sale value £500k, but you've only got £250k,  so Ill sell you a crappy garage at the side that needs repairs, then make you pay ground rent as you will not own the land it sits on.

Does that seem a fair deal?  Of course not, but, its as rediculous as Kirchner's offer without buying a ground.  How come all of the other offers all were dependent on buying the ground?  Because a cheap ground helped to offset the for all intensive purposes an insolvent business.  Any other type of business would have folded!

Everyone seems to have forgotten Andy Appleby who I have on good authority he bid twice...  He was definitely not a tyre kicker....

16 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Quantuma insist on £5m, all the bidders refuse, and then they liquidate us?  That's the plan?  Quantuma basically had zero leverage throughout the entire process - they were entirely at the whims of the various bidders.  It's not like a normal sale process where the current owner has absolute power to place conditions, and ultimately decide not to sell if they didn't feel the deal was right.

Don't get me wrong, Quantuma appear to have done a pretty poor job, but they aren't supposed to be miracle workers.

There were alternative credible bids, its just this fairy tale bid was the best and Q probably were pinching themselves when this offer came in.

There's an old saying if something looks to good to be true,it probably is.

Its clear what Kirchner was offering did not make sense: 

No ground purchase, its clearly worth more than £23m.

Agreeing to pay 35% over 3 years, its costing the new invester more money and would be paid out of the allowable spend in the imposed business plan, where as 25% upfront would not have presented this issue.

Both of the points above point to a man who simply did not have the funds, yet many on here thought he was the messiah.  I even got slated when I suggested the above really did not look right or make any business sense whatsoever.

Any credible party that seriously wanted PB status should have been confident enough to put their money behind the bid.  Why make it a stipulatiin if you are going to allow tyre kickers to take the p*ss?

Sorry, but for me this is just another sign of how poorly Q handled the whole issue....

52 minutes ago, Mihangel said:

It's an interesting piece, not without its issues - I don't understand the focus on 'access to the bank accounts', I know, literally, dozens of people who are producing financial results for major companies, none of them will have access to a bank account nor will they ever see a bank statement! Nevertheless it paints a picture that is probably far from unique in ambitious startups, lots of ingenuity, lacking in oversight and governance.

 

All major businesses have a Chief Finance Officer (CFO), some may double up with other roles such as chief Operating Officer.

The bottom line is whoever the CFO is signs off the accounts along with the CEO before presenting to the equivalence of companies house.  Thats a standard around the financial world, it also provides checks and balances that neither are on the fiddle.

I've no issue with Kirchner, as unusal as it may be being the only person able to authorise payments.  However the CFO MUST see the bank statements to be able to account for monies and keep the accounts up to date.  It would hace stopped this from happening.

What Kirchner has been alledged to have been doing smells fishier than Grimsby dock yard, know doubt his investors will be calling in the Feds and if whats been reported is true, Kirchner looks to be in deep trouble and could well be heading for clink.

What I do not get though is the lack of due diligence, checks and balances by his investors.  It beggers belief that nobody saw through him.

Its going to be a very interesting couple of years following this as it unravels, I suspect CK is not feeling quiet so cocky now!