RAM1966

1 minute ago, CornwallRam said:

As I pointed out and was bizarrely castgated as being negative, the big difference is the wages. The fake Sheikh never stumped up for the payroll. It appears that Kirchner has, so he's I infinitely more credible.

A few have said this, but, do we have it confirmed other than by the CK happy clapper club?

As other have said, how come out of these men and women involved nobody spotted the US BH, the UK one is a red herring as the deal still should have completed by Wed 2 days longer tgan the orginal deadline.....

TBH though, I'm more concerned about CKs ability to fund the club longer term, it really doesn't make sense not to buy the ground, its the only real asset.

24 minutes ago, 24Charlie said:

With you on this.

This deal isn’t done yet and it’s ok to say so. There have been some totally bonkers theories given airtime on this thread and to show concern over the CK effort to purchase the club at this time is perfectly acceptable. 
 

Thanks for your support Charlie, my biggest concern is Kirchner not buying the ground.  For me the deal does not make sense as its being presented.  Why pay approx £35m for 5 players, a fan base and the golden share.  The ground is clearly worth more than £23m, so if he had the money, it seems bizarre not to purchase the ground.  I have a couple of theories about this:

1.  He can't afford it, if thats the case he certainly can't afford to run a club that would challenge in the Championship....

2.  He's not bought the ground, this is a shortem plan and gamble for him.  If he decides to walk he'd have less to sell or write off.  He may have a short term plan, if he's not successful in returning us back to the Championship.

Despite thier statements, I think the Administrators haven't taken the longevity of the club into consideration.  Appleby would have been a much safer pair of hands, but, he wouldn't pay 35p in the £.....

Lets see what Monday brings, like everyone else I would like a conclusion, even if Kirchner is not my choice, its about saving the club.

For all you abusers out there, I want my club to be saved, I'd just rather we weren't in the same situation again in a couple of years if Kirchner gets bored in the event that Rooney fails to bring sucess.

2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Maybe, just maybe, there's bits and bobs still being argued about. I can't see anyone pulling out now it's got this far though, neither CK, nor Mel nor CK's 'partner'. #chill

How can that be if everything has been signed with Kirchner the last signature?

Monday is a huge day, if it does not complete then, I won't be the only one thats concerned.....

1 hour ago, RipleyRich said:

I'm genuinely not here on the wind up. There are several other regular posters on here with similar concerns and opinions, but as I have admitted I'm not a Ram it appears that some people believe I have a hidden agenda.

If you feel the need to ban me then so be it. 

Sincere apologies for any offence caused by my opinions.

It appears the cancel culture mob are on this website.  If you show concern, you are roundly abused and dismissed.  Some of these clowns doing this are quick to forget the fake Shiek and everythings been signed, just the money to come through promises.

1 hour ago, RipleyRich said:

Fantastic spin.......you should be a politician.

I'm just taking advantage of free speech and expressing my opinions.

As far as I can remember I have never suggested the club will be liquidated. I have expressed a fear of it after reading Quantumas article about HMRC. And as for players leaving, yes I believe some will. Partly due to offers they cant pass up and also because the club decides to take advantage of the income.

And no, I dont believe the Bank Holiday story for the delay. For how many people who will be involved in closing this deal, and not one of them realised it was a Bank Holiday week. No chance.

And on top of that, I still cant get my head around why CK won't or can't buy the Stadium but someone else will? I don't understand that but hopefully all will become clear sooner rather than later.

They are my opinions like it or not.

We are 100% on the same page, I've been trying to find out if CK has paid the players, but, tumbleweed.....

I'm no doubt going to get abuse for this, but, if the deal is not concluded by cease business on Monday, its not going to happen.......

13 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

It's a random list of tasks not a scope of works mate! Next time I'll draw you a Gantt chart ?

Please do I'm a Prince2 Practitioner.... ?

11 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Let's look at just a handful of the required actions before ownership can be formally confirmed and consider that all required completion in the handful of days since Ck signed contracts:

1) Transfer of funds - business to business transfers are not instant. Larger transactions are subject to anti money laundering checks undertaken by both issuing and receiving banks and banks move at their own pace, not those of interested parties.

2) The signing of numerous contracts and leases - these days this can be done remotely, even when signatories and witnesses are required, using services such as Docusign. That said, is every party involved moving heaven and earth to get this done? Might it be that some of those parties with no real vested interest in getting this deal over the line might not be sat around waiting into the early evening or night to expedite these processes? Might any individual be on leave or even abroad this week? Might one of the 25 lawyers be on his boat with his mobile off and no intention of accessing emails?

3) It seems it is not CK who is buying PP - has the 'partner' completed all the required paperwork and have the MSD charges been removed AND reported as such to the satisfaction of the EFL? 

4) Have the EFL had sufficient time to review all of the documentation and proofs to allow them to formally acknowledge and approve transfer of ownership, thereby formally agreeing CK's ownership and DCFC's membership?

5) Have the Land Registry and Companies House had sufficient time to update relevant records in accordance with the above steps and are any such amendments reflected in real-time or subject to roll-out delays?

6) Have the various legal teams acknowledged receipt of funds to concerned parties and did they do so prior to close of play yesterday.

7) If they have, have they also made the transfer of funds to the ultimate recipients and have their respective banks and those of the multiple recipients performed all required checks and balances including the anti money laundering checks mentioned in point 1?

Honestly, I could draft pages and pages of likely steps required to get this over the line that could only have been begun once the CK - Quantuma deal was agreed. I've no doubt that most parties are moving heaven and earth to get all the required i's dotted and t's crossed but equally, I think it's highly unlikely that ALL parties are making the same effort. As long as they are getting paid, do such parties really care whether this deal closes this week or next? Even relatively simple transactions such as buying a house can become a nightmarish exercise with any number of delays and hitches, after all. The fact is that the various parties are not working to deadlines per se, they are simply trying to get expedite what is a hideously complex deal with a wild excess of 'moving parts'. Perhaps then folk need to stop assuming that it is CK holding things up, or Quantuma for that matter, stop fretting and chucking shade and show a little patience and understanding for a guy who is trying to save the club we love. More to the point, the pubs open shortly, it's a long weekend, the sun is out and we'll be signing players by this time next week. Let's focus then on the positives, and stop stressing over imaginary issues as in this instance more than most, the devil really is in the detail.

 

You could but everything you've said is not factual, your order of march ls wrong, contracts before money for a start.....

More delays than Ryanair , hopefully a tochdiwn for CK soon... 

9 hours ago, Animal is a Ram said:

 

More delays than......  

9 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

The point is, that it doesn't much matter if the takeover doesn’t finalise for another couple of weeks. As long as Kirchner is fully committed and funding the club, it's fine.

The barometer of his committednes is whether he's funded the wages or not. Imo, that is the test here.

He can say what he likes on Twitter...talk is cheap. Nixon can give deadlines...they don't matter as long as someone is paying the bills. It's all in the payroll. 

I'm not demeaning Kirchner - I have no idea what he'll turn out like. At this point he's not the messiah, and he's not even a very naughty boy. He's just a prospective new owner.

I think you will find it does matter, the EFL needs certainty that we will be trading and completing in League one.  I not there will need to be some teams rapidly promoted to fill the gaps.  It would almostcertainly be undair on them with trander plans etc.

This must conclude by Monday latesr  Im alliwing for another delay and Thu & Fri BHs....

2 hours ago, Foreveram said:

Thanks for informing me but I already read the last few posts?

TBF - I answered your post before reading further, it looks as if others have done the same....

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

WE ARE OUT OF EMBARGO!

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/

Sorry to infom you but we are now a League One club, still in embargo

On 27/05/2022 at 13:17, Mihangel said:

Where's old One Chop and Ram1966 when you need them to bring the mood down?

Its great news, I delighted that the club 'looks' as if its saved.  Thanks CK.

My reservations are still there, why splash out £35m on 5 players a goldern share and the fan base?  It does not make sense to not purchase the ground too.  A £81m asset available for £23m

He's also pay 35p in the £, that way the debts is sretched over 3 years rather than paying 25p all in one go.  

This all suggests to me that cash flow is certainly tight to start with.  

Anyway, lets hope it completes and my concerns are unfounded.  Im just glad we look like we will have a team to go and support next season and in League 1 without a points deduction.  Keeping Wazza is a massive + for us.

7 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

It won’t be the auditors, they just basically rubberstamp accounts (or not), they won’t be involved in the actual formulation of them. Odds are, it’ll be something like Morris and Pearce asking the accountants what scope there was for creating some headroom, and this is what the accountants came up with, in the belief it was legal.

Which it was, or  Mel and Pearce would have both ended up in court for breakining FRS102 rules...

Just now, Dai Capp said:

Heavens above he's tedious - just an empty vessel trying to appear relevant. Hopefully with the takeover nearly done and being in a different league he'll bore the fans to death of another club to and make up his own special thoughts on how they should be run. Absolute chemically pure moron, that one...

I think he needs to worry about BCs accounts, if Lansdown gets bored like Mel they are in as deep trouble.

I believe he's more of A Bath City Rugby man too....

52 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

I wonder who told Mel because he is no accountant so someone must have suggested it and he went with it . 

Pearce or clubs accountants, it will have been explianed to him.

Here's the conversation

SP, Boss we going to break FFP, we need to calm down the spending

Ml- Is there anyway around the rules these idiots have written.

SP - We can change the amortisation method.

MM - Duck me has somebody died?

SP - No boss its the way we calculate the horrendous losses on these s**** players you picked and blamed on the managers.

MM - Oh right so I can sign more players and appointment more managers then, we will be certain to get promoted.

2 Years later

SP - Boss remember we changed the way we wrote players off to stay with FFP?

MM - Yeah problem solved.

SP - Err not quite boss you've really ducked things up spending 161% of all revenue on those overpaid prima donnas....  We massively over budget now.

MM - Sh1te, what can we do now?

SP - Sell the stadium to yourself, use the money to roll the dice one last time.  If it goes wrong put the club into and you still own the ground.

MM - Brilliant a win either way for me, TBH Im getting bored of this sh1te now, I never did like football, I just wanted to start the bounce a few times, been there, seen it, done it and bout the club.

2 Years later.

SP - Fans getting really angry, no club cones and you've really duck it up.

MM - Duck it, Admin it is, Ive got a new interest for a year or so to duck the fans and new owners about, while I hold everyone to ramsom over the ground.  Steve Ill need to sign an NDA over the ground comments, I want everyone to think the stadium will not be an issue.

Right Im off to Miami till this crap all blows over...

43 minutes ago, The Baron said:

Hi, here’s the amortisation for intangibles as requested. 

Read the next paragraph though, 18.23 (b)(2) it is probable that such a market will exist at the end at the assets useful life....

Which suggests tgat the straightline method did not have to be used.  Its clearly ambiguous, which is why the EFL had a rule change to close the loop, obviously not changed until after we got ducker over, then changed, as it would of strengthened our case.

How can you not see we've been unfairly treated?

5 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The rules at the time stated we must stick to FRS102. Some people believe our policy was compliant to FRS102, others didn't. Unfortunately, the 3 people who had the final say (with no accounting background) determined it was non-compliant.

The rule change doesn't automatically mean our policy was acceptable, but it does mean there will be nothing other than a common approach for all EFL clubs going forward. As I said very early on in the P&S case, the pragmatic approach would have been to change the rules and get the Club to change back to a straight line method.

It was compliant you have the option under FRS102 to do straight line, in stepped increments or depreciate annually after a evaluation.  The later being how the Stadium was increased in value on the books.....

Essentially its up to the business to present accounts in a true honest and fair reflection of thier assets. 

How many players get sold before the end of there contracts meaning they retain some residual value?  Meaning that the straightline method is not necessarily the best method.

Its accepted that it was common practice though throught the EFL to submit accounts in this manner.  Mel spotted a legal loop hole to exploit (As have many clubs to beat FFP regs), he got ducked over fir it, when they should of just closed the loop hole....

Legally we did nothing wrong, we just didn't follow the same working practices is others, it doesn't make it illegal though

13 hours ago, The Baron said:

Agreed. There was a winding up order from HMRC in January 2020, which is pre-Covid. 

The one single fact for me on the whole of this sorry situation is - The EFL introduced a rule change saying that all clubs must use the straightline amortisation method after the Admin rolled over and accepted the punishment.

If the rule change happened after out alledged discressions, it was clearly open to interpretation and not against the rules at the time.

Parry came out and said it was a rule clarification, yet its was minuted in the EFL mins as a rule change.  Muy understanding is our amortisation method was checked and agreed with the EFL, it only became an issue when Gibson started crying

Sorry, but the whole thing stinks, they should of closed the loop.  Not bully a club into accepting a punishment in a kangaroo court....

33 minutes ago, WystonRam said:

interesting accounts filed by Mels company that owns the stadium 

 

Not really, the ground was valued at that price by a fair independent valuation.  This was confirmed when Derby were cleared of charges.  It can not be reduced in value through the accounts until its actually sold...

7 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Surely though it’s a bit of a false deadline. if CK isn’t quite ready to complete on the Asset Purchase or finalise a lease on the stadium and perhaps needs another week (where have we heard that before) they’ll give an extension provided there is a reasonable expectation that both will then be completed.

Not really, there has to be a deadline for the EFL to announce fixtures.  If we were ti go pop, the that would mean promotions for other teams and they would need time to make signing to complete etc.

1 hour ago, Brailsford Ram said:

I was told tonight by someone who I consider both informed and reliable that Chris Kirchner's position as the PB currently extends until next Tuesday. If at that point the current barriers to him completing the takeover have not been resolved then he can walk away, paying his own advisory and legal costs and one week's cashflow of DCFC . He remains determined to complete the takeover if the barriers can be removed. This fits with the 31st May deadline that we have heard about. So it is not surprising news but it amplifies the importance of a resolution in the next few days if Rooney is to be allowed to begin restructuring his squad for next season as soon as possible.

Which is pretty much what Ive been saying gor the last week!!!

1 hour ago, B4ev6is said:

I dont think he will walk away.

I hope you are right B4, but why has CK insisted on the ground being sold or he can pull out?

3 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Seems unlikely. If there’s a tough negotiation going on I think it’s unlikely he’ll be providing further funding.  
 

(unless he’s selling it as an organic farm for 23m (that’s a joke please don’t worry B4 we’ll be at PP next season) )

He will have no option if it forms part of the lease agreement...

18 minutes ago, Crewton said:

As an Administrator, you wouldn't spend what little you have in the bank on someone else's asset. 

How do you know its not Morris footing the bill?  It depends whats on the current lease says.  Whats in the EFL rules about standard of pitches?  It maybe  requirement of the EFL to have a certain standard of pitch...

I'm not trying to be the merchant of doom as some are accusing me of, but, if it was all done and dusted why is there a condition on PPS unless the ground is sold?

Contrary to popular belief, I like CK, O just have reservations as to his funding model, surely purchasing the ground would have been a long term aspiration, if he is in it for the long haul?

19 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Well, unless Quantuma have found another source of funding, or Mel has decided to relay the pitch out of his own pocket, SOMEONE is underwriting current expenditure. 

I thought there was money in place until pay day.....  Thay said nobody really knows