-
Posts
476 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by San Fran Van Rams
-
-
Rams 2 - 0 Posh
Frgs Hourihan
-
Fleetwood 0 - 1 Derbyc
Collins frgs
-
Derby 3 - 0 Barnsley
Collins FRGS
We're due a few
-
rams 2-2 oxes
FRGS cashin
-
Majority of deals have closing conditions so this isn't something out of the ordinary.
The fact that he's funding us from next week, and therefore potentially before the close of the deal (which is when the money is actually wired and the closing conditions have been met) is a big deal and shows the commitment. If the stadium sale doesn't go through, he'll have put money into something that won't be his - i take that as a huge positive that the stadium sale must be close (or he wouldn't have signed).
-
DUCKING YES!!!!!! Surprised its come through so late in the day but what a way to round off a Monday.
Hopefully we get the stadium sorted asap but the fact they've signed the definitive agreement is huge news, as is the fact he'll be funding the club from next week. That's shows commitment. Hopefully this means we can now start rebuilding the squad to compete in L1.
UP THE RAMS!!!!!
- CBRammette, Jortat, Kathcairns and 2 others
-
3
-
2
-
2 hours ago, Mostyn6 said:
Can’t be bothered to read the thread but I’m surprisingly annoyed by the title, both options, Risk or Reward, should have the same element of “potential” against them, or neither should. But by suggesting Reward is only “potential”, readers could subconsciously infer that Risk is guaranteed whereas Reward is less likely. Disingenuous.
Not to be picky but risk is defined as uncertainty in outcome and can have both positive and negative outcomes. A more apt title may be 'the risks of Kirchner' ?
-
The whole Ebosele debacle is shocking and seems to be completely counterproductive in supporting the admin process... losing such a talented player for free when he could have been locked down to a contract and potentially sold to support the financing of the club's debts is madness. Another EFL rooster up in my eyes - how can they not see this kind of double punishment only serves to push the club further into oblivion.
The other terrible thing with Ebosele is that the English game is losing another fantastic young talent to foreign leagues... yes Festy is Irish, but surely we want to retain such talent to play in the EPL/EFL as he's the kind of players fans pay money to watch...
- AbuDerbyDave, Crewton, IslandExile and 1 other
-
4
-
15 minutes ago, GenBr said:
Was it ever confirmed how many bids there were?
"It is still not clear how many bids were lodged, but Sky Sports News understands a number of late enquiries were made by parties other than the three who had already expressed clear interest in a takeover."
Some of these other mystery groups could have bid for all we know, no?
When Kirchner got rejected he was trying to make out he was our only option as well. Seems to be a consistent response when these people dont get their own way.
This article from 2019 says Newcastle made cumulative profits of £80 million since 2010. That figure probably took a hit with Covid, but i'd expect it didnt wipe all of it away.
I think its telling that the news of the Binnies pulling out has come from the Binnies and not from Quantuma. A bit odd they went straight to the BBC to say they 'lost'... similar to Kirchner and his pram toy throws out episode we saw on Twitter. It could potentially be a negotiating tactic to bring other bids down and closer to what the Binnies want to offer so we'll see if they end up coming back in at a later date, as is possible with Kirchner too.
It seems like a blow to lose a bidder, but I'd be shocked if Quantuma rejected the bid without other credible offers on the table. Agree that we could be looking at other mystery bidders, and its taking time for Quantuma to review their bids as they're brand new hence the delay.
It does concern me that the bid was rejected with a small amount seemingly set aside for the stadium - sounds like Mel has named his price and its not 0 when it absolutely should be.
-
1 hour ago, RealisticRam said:
Will never be a Rooney fan. Thanks for the effort and all but regardless of the result at the end of the season, new manager needed I think for 2022/23.
I'm interested to know why you think this?
-
Solid performance today and good confidence booster going into some tough games.
Reading within touching distance and have a challenging run in. Get couple of points out of Bournemouth and Blackburn and I'd put us favourites to stay up.
-
27 minutes ago, winktheram said:
I 'heard' it's not Ashley screwing down a deal, his bid is in. The new spanner in the works was a last minute bid by Dell (msd) l. Would make sense as they are the major creditor with money already in he club and the stadium.
V interesting if true. If true, I assume the negotiation is now on what cash they need to pay of the minimum viable debt, whether that results in 0 or -15 points next season, and whether they get the stadium for no cost - would raise the question as to whether Morris would allow this. He'd walk away with absolutely nothing, which in my mind is how it should be.
Pure conjecture obviously but makes sense as to why its taking time to agree to the particulars.
-
Was wondering what CKR was doing out on the wing. But I'll take an own goal for 2-1. Millwall now playing silly buggers wasting time
-
-
Is the game on ramstv anywhere tonight?
-
1 hour ago, europia said:
We live in a litigation society. Any individual, business or corporation can pursue a civil case through the courts if they are prepared to throw enough money at it.
I didn't think they could given DCFC are in admin? Goes against insolvency law unless a court deems it permissable?
-
11 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:
I certainly hope we don’t sell any more. But as a tax payer I can see why they might say we should conduct a fire sale and go down
HMRC will get more money from Derby finding a buyer than from selling whatever playing squad we have left.
- Tamworthram, kevinhectoring, uttoxram75 and 1 other
-
2
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Red Ram said:
Boro's recent statement specifically addresses this question in relation to the way Derby have allegedly delayed the resolution of their claim.
"Had it been finally determined, and an award made in favour of MFC, there would be no dispute that MFC would be a Football Creditor."
This is consistent with the rules cited in the first post of this thread. So they aren't football creditors but now but they will be in the future if they win their case.
I've yet to hear a convincing argument to the contrary but would very much like to?
For me this is exactly the issue.
The EFL are threatening withdrawal of the golden share as we can't get funding in for the rest of the season. This would make us worthless. The admins plan is for the funding to come from restructuring the debt and the new owners coming in. The EFL are forcing us to hear via arbitration the baseless and vexatious legal claims that haven't gone through a court of law and can't as we're in admin. EFL are forcing this as they believe all clubs deserve to have their claims heard and not allowing this to set a precedent. New owners don't want the risk of the arbitration going against us as the claims would turn into football debt, even though they aren't at the moment. We'd then be facing a further 15 point deduction next season which could relegate us to league two.
EFL needs to come out and say to M and W they're not permitted to pursue their claims as the DC didn't offer them any compensation as the final decision (as per EFL rules) and that all future compensation decisions for clubs must be made at the DC hearings the sanctions are decided at.
It can't be that hard for EFL to do this. It's frustrating. On one hand, the EFL want to be the law, yet on the other, say they can't interfere. Which is it??
-
5 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:
In context, I agree. It could be more or less the update Toby Perkins gave on twitter, which wasn't great. I don't really expect much more than that until something moves.
It's something of a mexican stand off between Quantuma, the EFL, WW+Boro with Mike Ashley watching and waiting to see at what point he should step in to his maximum benefit, or walk away. And given the general bastadry of Mike Ashley as a businessman, it would be foolish to think he wouldn't if the price wasn't right.
WW+Boro are least likely to move because they risk nothing by maintaining their current position. Won't move because they don't have to. Gibson is a fanatic on this. His mouthpieces utting around he'd take a lot less than £45m is hardly the generous good guy of the piece he thinks it makes him. No one compelled Gibson to take this action, BTW, and his stated grievence was the EFL did not enforce their rules, which they now have.
The EFL may feel they can't move becuase of the way they've interpreted their regs, but also under pressure to not see DCFC go under. Won't move because they don't think they can, but possibley might under external pressure.
Quantuma, don't think they can move becuase bidders won't take on WW+Boro risk. Would like to move but can't.
In all honesty, the best likely outcome is DCFC are rescued at the last minute, probably by Ashley but the club in a terrible state and creditors getting absolutly rinsed. Other plausible scenarios include variations on "new"" DCFC being technically a contiunation of Derby County but in effect went bust and was restructured. Worst case, we all know.
I'm not an insolvency or administration legal expert, but i'd thought no legal proceedings can be brought or continued against a company in administration unless the admins agree or the court allows it. So if MFCs claim has not been upheld in court prior to admin and if the courts have not said it can continue, how can MFC or WW continue to press for it? Or is DCFC not in true administration in the eyes of the law?
-
15 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:
Their complaint was against the stadium sale up until the punishment was announced following the LAPs decision against Derby. At which point they decided the amortisation policy was bad.
When was the LAP? From their club statement, MFC started arbitration proceedings before Derby were sanctioned and required to resubmit accounts. The DC made its final decision in July 2021... https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2021/07/efl-statement-Derby-county-sanction-written-reasons, a full 6 months after the arbitration began.
MFC became aware that Derby County was cheating under the P&S Rules during 2018/19. MFC first intimated a claim against Derby County in May 2019 immediately following the end of the 2018/19 season. The claim was held in abeyance whilst the EFL Disciplinary Proceedings against Derby County were followed through to a conclusion. MFC then sent Derby County a Letter Before Action in the autumn of 2020 and started arbitration proceedings against Derby County in January 2021.
- Indy, r_wilcockson and FlyBritishMidland
-
1
-
2
-
1 minute ago, RandomAccessMemory said:
It’s like they’ve opened the regulations, searched for the word compensation, and run with it.
Unless there’s another rule 92.2.5 somewhere and I quoted the wrong one? But I found that one and it seemed to fit what with mentioning paying compensation.
The rule 92.2.5 is clear that any MFC compensation would have been directed by the DC so I don't know what leg they have to stand on in that respect. This for me raises the question as to what claim they've initiated.
Perhaps the issue is that MFC are seeking damages outside of the EFL's jurisdiction and that there needs to be a determination as to whether such claims if successful would make MFC a football creditor.
My question to this is whether MFC is allowed to make such a claim outside of the jurisdiction of the EFL. The rules states that clubs must agree to fall under the jurisdiction of the league but I'm not clear on if this means they can't pursue damages outside of it...
21 Undertakings to be given by Club Officials
21.1 All Clubs must incorporate in any contracts of employment (or other contract for services) with their Officials and Players:
21.1.1 an undertaking on the part of the Official or Player not to bring The League or any Club into disrepute;
21.1.2 an undertaking on the part of the Official or Player not to do anything or omit to do anything which will cause the Club to be in breach of the Laws of the Game, the Football Association Rules, the rules of the Premier League, these Regulations or the Articles of Association; and
21.1.3 an acknowledgement that they are subject to the jurisdiction of The League and Football Association.
21.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation 21.1, all Officials and Players shall by virtue of their fulfilment of those roles be deemed to have given to The League:
21.2.1 an undertaking to The League not to bring The League or any Club, into disrepute;
21.2.2 an undertaking not to do anything or omit to do anything which will cause a Club to be in breach of the Laws of the Game, the Football Association Rules, these Regulations or the Articles of Association; and
21.2.3 an acknowledgement that they are subject to the jurisdiction of The League and Football Association.
-
22 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:
92 Decisions
92.1 The Disciplinary Commission may at any time make a decision, and may make more than one decision at different times on different aspects of the matters to be determined.
92.2 A decision may:
92.2.1 order a party to do or refrain from doing anything;
92.2.2 order a specific performance;
92.2.3 make a declaration on any matter to be determined;
92.2.4 issue a reprimand or warning as to the future conduct of a party;
92.2.5 order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person;
Yes but the decision to require Derby to pay compensation to MFC should have been made by the DC at the time of the trial and not brought retrospectively by MFC.
- RadioactiveWaste, r_wilcockson, Indy and 2 others
-
1
-
4
-
14 minutes ago, TooFarInToTurnRed said:
This is taken out of context somewhat, Boro took action against the EFL for not enforcing the rules which was halted when we were charged.
This screen shot reads that MFC's issue was not with the amortization policy, but with the stadium valuation which has since been proven to be innocent. Is the original claim of MFC and the one they are pursuing therefore not valid on that basis, that no wrong doing was found with respect to their grievance?
Nonetheless, I'd also be interested to know if there are other precedents set whereby action by a sporting/membership body that showed wrong doing by a party, was followed up by another party seeking compensation for said wrong doing. I'd thought the EFL rules were clear that members couldn't seek damages against each other although I admit I haven't found the exact wording to prove that point.
Should we be patient? If so, how does it improve?
in Derby County Forum
Posted
I think we have to give a little more time to Warne. I'm not a huge fan of his recruitment - neither Nelson nor Bradley inspire much confidence in me yet, Elder seems to be very poor technically and Washington hasn't shown much yet. As many others have said, none of them have replaced McGoldrick although I'd argue he was an anomaly and we were far too reliant on him last season for our goals. We had no one else chipping in.
However, it also looks like the team are still blending and I don't think we should judge for another 5-10 games. I like the look of Wilson and Ward - they both have energy, get forward well, can cross etc etc. They seem to have fitted in well - the others not so much. I'm not so worried about loss of Knight but if Bird goes we'll be in trouble. He seems to be the shining light this season and his touch, poise and passing, along with Hourihan, can unlock this division. We just need those around those two to click properly, especially on the left where we seem to be impotent... Never mind a new sticker, get a left sided winger in.