Indy

No option to pay in instalments. Unless I’ve misunderstood?

32 minutes ago, CBX1985 said:

I strongly suspect that is the point of the new company.  

Also - their entire grievance is linked to the timings of punishments, which were in the hands of the EFL, not us. The damage was done because they never submitted that argument to be tested in court, which muddied the water for our administration and potential liabilities. Now that we’re out of administration, they can either file papers or not - knowing that we can do what an ownerless club couldn’t do, and that is defend ourselves. Just feels like he’s playing to his audience of WW supporters and desperately trying to seem relevant. 

Can I say how great it is to see the change of tone. No more bland, evasive statements hoping to avoid talking about delays and bad news. Now it’s jokes, emojis and a bit of swagger. Lovely to see us get some of our mojo back. If we can combine that confidence with the positivity we grew last year in our support, it could be a very special season. 

4 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Spaghetti Carbonari 

I’m gonna have a Ham Asanovic (say it quickly). 

1 minute ago, NottsRam77 said:

No f****** way 

Fake account. His is @JPercyTelegraph

Can people check sources before posting up this kind of cr*p, please?

25 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Is it on sky?

BBC Parliament (Sky channel 504) has live House of Commons all afternoon. Should be on there unless there’s an important select committee or something else going on at the same time. 

once we have an owner in place, he is free to take it to court. This was only ever an issue because it muddied the waters and delayed us coming out of administration and being taken over. Instead of prattling nonsense to his own fan base he could be getting the papers in and having it tested properly – unless he knows that he hasn’t got a case at all. What an irrelevance.

1 hour ago, hintonsboots said:

Rod Liddle has Danny Cowley as the fans choice ?

Take this with a pinch of salt as it’s got CK’s bid totally wrong. He offered 35% over three years which definitely avoided a further points penalty. Seems poorly researched. 

36 minutes ago, Hanny said:

I’m assuming these are just wild rumors about MA. As if he all of a sudden wanted to plunk down a large bid, it doesn’t make a ton of sense. As all involved (supporters included) will say something like:

 ‘you were prepared to pay THIS much the entire time, yet you let the club bleed and lose assets…for what?!’

Also, with Clowes now owning PP- I suppose he could say the cost of that stadium has now doubled. As it’s no longer a distressed asset, and in good standing. Same with the club. If Clowes is essentially signed off with ‘saving’ the club, by providing enough funding, Then MA has lost the position of being able to say HE saved the club. At this point he would just be wresting the club away from the person that was first through the wall to actually save the club.  ?‍♂️  
 

Regardless- if MA were to come in with a larger bid at this stage, would be viewed as a pretty crap move as far as common decency is concerned, and would actually be against good-faith negotiating practices. Basically every business entity involved would think he’s a douche-bag for doing it this way. And his credibility/trust would be eroded a fair bit. 

Also, I’ve seen nothing to suggest MA is offering more. This unattributed rumour seems pretty selective in offering enough to give more to creditors - presumably Quantuma have to agree to drop their fee, and the stadium is someone else’s concern. Smacks of a sound bite designed to sow doubt and confusion. 
 

Truth is, many speculated that MA was going to covertly buy Pride Park off Mel to put himself in the box seat over a takeover - and he’s probably miffed that someone else has done exactly that. Instead of endless press briefing in the margins, he could’ve actually put a bid in. He didn’t. It’d be better for everyone, not least DCFC, if he stopped actively trying to turn us into the kind of basket case business he usually snaps up for pennies. 

Stimac is currently managing the Indian national team in a pretty good run in the Asian Cup. He won’t be free immediately - if he fancies it at all; seems to be enjoying his current role. 

Gutted about Rooney. I think the way he’s conducted himself in the face of relentless ineptitude and bad management has been exemplary and kept my pride in saying I’m a Derby fan over the last year or so. 
 

On a practical basis, I think he’s shown that he can get the best out of talented maverick cast offs, older players written off and emerging youth - which would have been exactly what we need to be competitive again. And I also think his name, and enhanced reputation from this past year as a manager, would have helped us retain and attract players way above our current station. 
 

I think it’s a massive loss and hope that there is a plan in place for management and recruitment that, presumably, needs to do a year’s work in a few weeks to get a playing squad ready for the new season that starts next month. Fingers crossed. 

9 minutes ago, StaffsRam said:

Unfortunately for the EFL we’ve long-since perfected the fine-tuning of our bullsh*t-detecting translation device.

Not sure it needs fine tuning. If you can see they’re putting out a release, you’ve already detected the bullsh*t! 

31 minutes ago, Indy said:

That’s harsh.

If there was some good news that they could somehow try to take credit for, they’d be all over it!

Told ya! ?

Thanks for making this happen, EFL! ?

15 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

 

The pronunciation mystery is solved? Morning, Clowes!

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Funny how EFL are normally quick to issue statements.. except when there is good news.

That’s harsh.

If there was some good news that they could somehow try to take credit for, they’d be all over it!

35 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I haven't been following this thread too closely over the last week or so.

Am I right in saying that after messing around with CK for months, getting releagted, losing players and general mayhem, we now have 2 different parties each bidding 50 million?

And is seems like these sort of bids could have been looked at ages ago if we hadn't spent so long messing about with CK?

Almost. These sort of bids could have been looked at ages ago if EFL/Gibson claim had not been threatening a possible £50m liability in the future. By the time CK was preferred bidder, that damage had all been done, and his was the only bid on the table. 

22 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

Hmm well that doesn't align with the statement Quantuma have put out tonight. Has Appleby actually submitted this bid? If he had then surely things would be moving quickly now, if it's the 50m figure that's reported.

I agree. It does seem contradictory. 

Just now, Rammy03 said:

That Natalie Jackson from East Midlands today. She never gets anything right 

The start of that report quite clearly said they’d spoken to Andy Appleby and he had provided the figure. (I think their breakdown of it was their own work, though.)

3 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

Well on bbc sport bit on twitter page

Hi B4. The BBC Sport article says the same thing - Q have informed EFL that it would be against the law for them to tell the EFL about bidders and bids. EFL want to speak to bidders’ lawyers but haven’t been able to - although it’s not clear from this why they haven’t been able to. 
 

5 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

I have seen efl want to speak to other bidders but Q are blocking them doing just that.

If that is the case surely efl can go to the FA and say we need your help.

Q aren’t blocking them. The law means the bids are confidential. EFL can only speak to a bidder if the bidder wants to talk to them - and none of them do. 

15 minutes ago, alram said:

derby are members of the EFL, the governing body should know what is happening in the processs. its nothing to do with GDPR or NDAs, it is using them as a smoke screen to hide behind.

With the greatest respect, that last paragraph is drivel. Birch’s reply sounds like Quantuma have said they are happy to share discussions, but it would also require the permission of the other parties involved (ie the bidder) who have not given their consent. Having leaked like a sieve for a year, I’m not surprised bidders want to keep the EFL away from a closed and confidential bidding process. 

18 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Mods pls remove if not allowed - not sure on this one.

"I think it is important that I first clarify the EFL’s position regarding the issue of deadlines which you raise in your letter. 

The EFL will permit a club to play in its competition while in administration for a maximum of 18 months. However, a club will not be permitted to start two consecutive seasons in administration. Given Derby County entered administration in September 2021, after the beginning of the 2021/22 season, it is the 18-month deadline that is more relevant here and will require the club to exit administration by March 2023 at the very latest. 

That said, an administrator can only continue to trade a business if they have the necessary funding to do so. Therefore, there are fundamentally two options. 

1. The administrator can restructure a business to ensure it can operate on a break-even basis until a new buyer can be identified. This will often involve stripping cost out of the business to ensure that its outgoings do not exceed its income.

2. Alternatively, the administrator can seek to utilise an external source of funding to cover the trading shortfall. Often this will be the preferred bidder as they go through the purchase process. While this avoids the challenges associated with cutting costs from the business (and the potential that it will devalue it to some degree) it is an approach that is inherently riskier, particularly if a funder is not forthcoming or if the administration process becomes protracted. In this case the administrators have funded the ongoing trading losses with further advances from an external funder which has security on the stadium. This of course has created a liability that the administrators need a prospective purchaser to repay as part of the sale consideration.  This debt has obviously grown with every passing month of administration trading.

As it stands the administrators of DCFC will need to provide the Board of the EFL with evidence that the club will meet its commitment to the competition for the 22/23 season (including an exit before March 2023) to avoid the club beginning the season but not completing it. 

Our desire to understand this situation better and take proactive action to move it forward led to last week’s statement where we announced the amendment of our Notice of Withdrawal conditions. 

Since then, the EFL and Quantuma have held daily meetings. However, the administrators have informed us that the confidentiality arrangements agreed with bidders, plus obligations owed by the administrators to individuals under the UK’s General Data Protection Regulations, means they are unable to confirm the identity of any bidder without the express consent from the relevant bidder.  In order to explain our position, we have asked for calls with the solicitors acting for those bidders who have refused consent. These calls have not yet taken place.

As you can imagine this is extremely frustrating for us. Firstly, with considerable experience in this area we believe we can help review any proposed exit plans to identify any issues as early as possible so we can then work with them to try and find any potential solutions.

Secondly, we will have significant work to do on verification of compliance with the Owners’ and Directors’ Test as well as an assessment of the ultimate source and sufficiency of funding. This clearly cannot start until we have the necessary information. 

In the circumstances therefore, if you require further information this will have to be provided by the administrators. 

To return to your original query re deadlines I understand some may say we should be stronger and impose specific deadlines but given our powers derive from the ability to withdraw central funding, impose sporting sanctions and/or ultimately withdraw membership it is difficult to see how this is beneficial to the Club at this time. As we have maintained throughout this process our priority has been doing what is within our power to assist those seeking to take the club out of administration. We continue to remain in the hands of the administrators to deliver a successful sale of the club.

We will continue to push for receipt of the necessary information and are happy to have a further update call with you early next week.

Kind regards

Trevor Birch
Chief Executive Officer"

So in the EFL’s own admission, their demand to automatically be party to correspondence between bidders and Quantuma would have broken the law (GDPR regs). But this could be permitted if each bidder themselves consented to the EFL seeing everything - which they have not done, presumably not seeing the value in it and/or being mindful of the fact that confidential EFL access is a direct line to the press.
 

Another world class intervention from our governing body. Brilliant. 

12 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

Is this east Midlands today thing real or fantasy 

Lars Bohinen Rhapsody?

28 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

What is the point of setting a deadline? Isn’t it like applying for a job? If you snooze you lose as Ashley May have found out. 

I’d say setting a deadline would give Quantuma a defence if MA cries foul again. Say it has to be in by 5pm (for example) then you consider what has been submitted at that point based on their merits. Without a deadline, whenever Q announce a winner, MA can pop up and say he was just about to offer £Xm more, sowing discontent and trying to undermine everyone and everything. 

16 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

"Legal documents allege that Ashley's group, MASH, were told they were named as preferred bidders in January and it is claimed Jackson failed to inform the Football League, despite insisting he would."

Well I suppose they could be done in crayon and not admissible.

Isn’t this referring to the legal documents MASH have submitted as their grievance - alleging wrongdoing. That’s not the same as them having documents from the time that prove the allegation that they’re submitting as evidence.