Indy

We’ll, as we’re in 1987, I’m hoping the funds are confirmed “in the still of the night”. 

3 minutes ago, Mckram said:

If MA has sent a letter dated today to Q effectively saying speak to me then it is worrying. 

Doesn’t his letter literally start by acknowledging a letter Q have already sent to him?

1 minute ago, Curtains said:

 

Wish I had that “no doubt about it, I’m ready to get hurt again” pic!

4 hours ago, 24Charlie said:

If CK is awash with funds gained through smart business acumen why buy DCFC?

We see he has sponsored well known sporting events to forward his company but he has said Slyco will not be the shirt sponsor. He says it’s not the right vehicle for his business and he is probably right. So what is DCFC to be used for? What is his motivation?

If it’s purely a vanity project then a couple of years kicking around league one will see that wear thin in short order.

I’ve said before that I don’t see the Kirchner fit and I don’t. But I’ll stand to be corrected. I didn’t think Rooney was the man and after barely avoiding relegation I was convinced of it. Circumstances gave him a second chance and he has acquitted himself fairly well.

I’ll say this though if CK falls through and we end up with Ashley -15 and no Rooney then I won’t lose any sleep over it.

I think he meant Derby shirt sponsorship wouldn’t be a good fit for slync as they would be looking for business to business exposure with an international reach. Derby shirt sponsor should be a consumer brand with a uk focus. 
 

I’d also agree that he may be looking at Ryan Reynolds/Wrexham and thinking it might be a laugh and he has the disposable cash to have a go. 

36 minutes ago, cosmic said:

"Regulation 17 - Deafult in pyaments to HMRC"

 

Jesus wept. They are so unprofessional, it's hilarious.

To be fair, it must be pretty tricky for Rick Parry to type with only one hand free as I’m sure he does when updating the Derby County embargo page. 

Surely that’s a penalty. 

5 hours ago, Crewton said:

Meanwhile, Speckled Jim has arrived in Bristol with the latest news from the Front Line :

My favourite bit of this is “Now personally I’m not bothered” from a guy who is the dictionary definition of ‘bothered’ by our supposed indiscretions. Looking forward to us moving on in the next few weeks, and the likes of this sad sack still scrabbling around in the debris for something to pin on us. Pathetic. 

54 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

Ha ha ha. What a Grade A **** (insert the strongest insult you’re comfortable with).

25 minutes ago, Eastdevonram said:

I does seem very odd that it cannot be completed until the last day of the month, there must be a reason  that they are not telling us

Wages due at the end of the month - paid in arrears. Might just be to simplify the scenario otherwise CK becomes liable on May 31 to pay for services rendered before he was owner (the rest of the month of May). Whatever keeps it simple - if he technically is liable and responsible from the same date (1 June) that might be easier.
 

As long as we see the corner flag next week followed by some player news over the following days/weeks, I’ll be happy. 

21 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Difference between Buchanan and Jagielka/Marriott is the type of extension. Buchanan's extension was in his contract, an option the club and/or the player could choose to apply. Jagielka and Marriott didn't have an option in their existing contracts, so were given new contracts.

Might be wrong, but I thought Marriot’s was an extension option in his existing contract. We wanted to extend purely to be in a position to command a transfer fee, admittedly - but that’s neither here nor there. 

6 minutes ago, KBB said:

I'm sure some fans will say "so what" and continue to play down his ability.

Buchanan is what he is. A young full back who is having to learn his craft in the pressure cooker of our first team in the midst of back to back relegation battles.

The nature of the beast means he will have patches of massive inconsistencies. Just ask sibley, bird, ebosele and Knight, all whom I have seen called out on here and social media with regards to performances and their merits of being in our first team.

A young, English, attacking fullback, who may well have a long term role change to centre half, who although prone to drops of form and concentration lapses, has also provided superb balls winning penos and setting up goals this season.

Another year? No brainer, even if we immediately sell him to generate funds. Better than £0

I’m pleased with this. I like Buchanan. He’s young and still learning, but should be dynamite in League One if he can find the room/time to play. 

44 minutes ago, Oldben said:

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/05/19/liverpool-have-recently-made-a-decision-that-will-save-them-millions-of-pounds-our-view/

“The Reds have seemingly played a blinder here.”

Yeah. Like picking the pocket of a heart attack victim. Opportunism and greed at our expense. What a blinder. Well done, everyone. 

24 minutes ago, RedSox said:

Now first I have to state that I’ve only been involved in 3 M&A deals, but each time all 4 of us directors were there start to finish along with our legal team (going through to the early hours twice). So it seems a little odd that CK is at a Golf event whilst this is going down.  Makes me wonder whether A) a deal was agreed but not finalised on Sunday and is in the hands of the lawyers or B) CK has gone in search of funds in the Far East as a last minute effort to get the deal done on Saturday. Just seems odd him not being here and sending a deputy to the golf event. 

I think buying us is his personal affairs, and representing his company as the CEO of the main sponsor is his business, so would take priority. He seems to be comfortable delegating, and is contactable. 

1 hour ago, Animal is a Ram said:

 

 

I said last week he’d have wi-fi on his snazzy plane. Fancy fokker!

11 hours ago, Indy said:

I reckon CK’s got Wi-Fi on his fancy plane and is checking the forum, and then telling the pilot to fly around at random to mess with us. 

Hmmm

12 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

EFL Statement

 

The EFL Board has today been advised that a deal to take Derby County out of administration and under the ownership of Mr Chris Kirchner is nearing completion.

Evidence of source and sufficiency of funding has now been provided but there still remain a number of outstanding challenges to be resolved.  

As a result, the Board has instructed the Executive to continue its discussions with Mr Kirchner and his representatives in regard to finalising the terms of a Membership agreement. 

However, a significant issue remains in respect of the status of the stadium and Mr Kirchner continues in dialogue with the relevant parties as to how this can be resolved. It is clear that the complexity associated with this aspect of the transaction is the biggest hurdle to overcome.

The EFL acknowledges the current time pressures relating to Mr Kirchner’s position as preferred bidder and will seek to conclude matters as soon as possible in line with requirements as set out in the League’s Insolvency Policy.  

The League will be making no further comment at this time. 

I’m officially sick to death of this now. 

I reckon CK’s got Wi-Fi on his fancy plane and is checking the forum, and then telling the pilot to fly around at random to mess with us. 

50 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

 

Jesus H.  One of the basement dwellers from OTIB-I can't imagine who - has joined the Gumps forum.  Probably evicted before they finally slip into a coma. What a life. Sad b******.?

Thanks for the welcome last week, enjoyed Notcher's post on the financials too- and indeed ultimately what it comes down to there is "where are the accounts". 3 years worth not there, not only for the club, parent and consolidator but a range of subsidaries who would not be affected by the amortisation issue.

Club DCFC, Stadia DCFC and potentially Derby County FC Academy are unaffected by amortisation of Player Registrations- academy products have a net book value of zero from the getgo,so why they didn't even release these specific ones in 2020 and 2021 pre administration is puzzling. Only exception to that rule is if they added players for fees from other clubs to DCFC Academy maybe.

On one or two other bits. The stadium loophole was shut in summer 2021, after a vote by clubs. Not just for stadia either, but any and every Tangible Fixed Asset. Not to say that a club cannot do it, just that the EFL or UEFA it exclude it from the FFP numbers. In actual fact, prior to 2016 it was already excluded from the EFL FFP regs and UEFA never brought it in probably because they could see where it might lead and that it was a stupid idea!

The Stoke one is quite interesting for a couple of reasons. They have sold the stadium for about £70m so a profit on that of £30m or so- the training ground too with a few million profit but the stadium sale is the big one, think the total profit for the two was £32m or so.

However I wonder why- and it maybe innocent- the sale date as stated in the accounts appears not to align with the Land Registry. Sheffield Wednesday got in trouble for this to an extent and it had to be put in the correct year although they botched it badly. Stoke may not have done.

The difference here is that if put in the correct year the EFL's own rules state that it should be excluded from FFP/P&S. Not only was it the season of 2021/22 but the Accounting Reference Period covering that season.

Fully accept that the Land Registry can lag, and exacerbated post Covid but the timespans are more like SWFC at this juncture than Aston Villa, Derby, and belatedly Sheffield Wednesday. Dunno about Birmingham or Reading but they 'sold' to foreign individuals/companies.
 

(b)with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22, profit/loss on disposal of any tangible fixed asset.

I'd simply say Devil in the detail.

As for Derby, puzzled as to the total silence on HMRC debt, puzzled too as to how the rules on council borrowing fit with the talk of borrowed money. Someone on OTIB got at this point.

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co...le-for-support

Refinance commercial property debt? OTOH, the other side- included within the article puts speculation as to how they fund it at odds with a law change?
 

The guidance followed a ruling by the Treasury last November that councils could no longer borrow from the PWLB simply to support property purchases made “primarily for yield”.

Would buying Pride Park with money borrowed be classed as this? Yet another public subsidy to Derby if so...and one that seems suspect based on this. If it's not primarily for yield, that again strikes me as a bad use of public money in this time.

I am sure the other clubs will be watching the EFL very closely, and the EFL's Owners and Directors Test contains this section- and I would hope a stringent Business Plan would come under this.
 

3.2 In relation to any proposed acquisition of Control of a Club by a Person, The League shall have:

3.2.1 the powers set out in Regulation 16.20; and/or

3.2.2 the ability to impose such other conditions,

as in each case it may determine, in order to monitor and/or ensure compliance with Regulations 16 to 19, 21, 22 (including Appendix 3) and 103 to 113 inclusive (and their successor or replacement provisions).
Sounds a bit like carte blanche I reckon. Especially in conjunction with...
 

3.3 No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:

3.3.1 The League provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule 3.1.1(a) and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Relevant Person;

3.3.2 The League provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule 3.1.1(b); and

3.3.3 The Club and any Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule 3.2.

One more on OTIB who has been both quite scathing and informative about Derby- HXJ. He was actually banned from posting when he tried to join in 2021- before he'd even posted a thing!

I’m looking forward to the next week or so as we’ll either be sorted and these idiots can crawl back under their stones, or we’ll be liquidated and I’ll never look at a football forum again. Either way, I can’t wait to not have to continue to endure their pathetic crusade to kill DCFC. 

Any details? I’m travelling through the Czech Republic and can’t get any video or commentary - just that awful Squad Goals programme that comes in BBC Sounds instead of live commentary. Useless.  

13 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

But, but..... That's the whole Bristol City business model.  They could deffo have sold 30 million quid's worth of players every season till the end of time if not for a pandemic. Well, that and losing 2 million quid a month and converting into shares worth tuppence.  Surely when they present it to the EFL they won't be told to jog on. 

And Stoke have already written off losses due to Covid reducing their player sales income, I think. Which is odd as we were told that Covid is not a force majeure event that clubs couldn’t have planned for (so we couldn’t appeal administration) and notional player values can’t be used to determine current book value of assets (for our amortisation).
 

Much as I know Mel is the root cause of our situation, I find it odd that anyone thinks the EFL haven’t deliberately used any discretion they have to disadvantage us at every turn. 

17 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

And he was exactly right, I believe.

He was completely correct. And that statement also shows the EFL weren’t entirely truthful when they said that we had misled them about the method being used, implying that they had only accepted it in the past because they hadn’t understood it. It sounds like they understood it perfectly: within the rules, but carrying some risk in the future. 

22 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

It would just sum the whole thing up if the EFL rejected his business plan because he formatted it in Times New Roman and they only accept business plans written in Comic Sans.

I think they only accept submissions in Steve Gibson’s handwriting. 

21 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

Football debts to be paid 100% ? Cocu, Kamil and Beilik debts ? £10 mill ?

Not sure if it includes Cocu. Football debts are those owed to a “football body” such as Arsenal (for bielik) and Lech Poznan (for Kamil) - although I’m not sure if foreign clubs fall in the definition (but uefa/fifa would probably be involved if they weren’t paid). I would guess Cocu is a private individual who is contractually owed money, rather than a football debt. 

17 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Problem is there probably franchises like Mcdonalds.  The owners of the ones locally won't be thanking them.

If I ran one of their Derby outlets, I’d be screenshotting the response from Derby fans, monitoring any drop in trade, and demanding a refund of the franchise fee from head office. 

8 minutes ago, Alty_Ram said:

I like the simple straight responses from CK on that twitter announcement. The only thing that gives me slight pause in that response is the bit about wanting to know which division they were planning for. Now that is of course completely understandable but it just raises a thought about potentially different offers conditional on League status and whether that might complicate the offer and therefore debt situation and getting the deal over the line. Hopefully just fretting about nothing.

I didn’t get the sense that the offer was particularly dependent on which league, just the business plan that the EFL have to approve.
 

This makes sense as the costs of servicing the debt stay the same whatever, but the incoming revenue is drastically different so the business plan would have to show where the funding would come from. For example, some might come from CK’s personal wealth, but some might come from having a smaller transfer budget in League One than in the Championship.