Woodley Ram

18 hours ago, tomsdubs said:

He better be quick of his line with that surname.

he needs to be the other guy is wild

so its an interesting one, you can in fact refuse to transfer to the new company, not sure why others don't use this as its a big loop hole. The only issue I have is that Derby hold his registration and he has a contract to provide services, I would have thought that was different from a normal employment contract that we non football players sign?

isn't it that registration that a club buys and isn't that registration outside of TUPE?   

It has been said on Twitter and DT that TUPE allows for the extension to be ripped up. I have dealt with TUPE before and have never seen such an exemption. If the extension has been exercised then I don’t see how he can sign for Bremen? 
 

i would thought that it is LB that is in breach of breaking his contract and that UEFA should block any transfer. 
 

any lawyers got a view ?

4 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I promise to pay all remaining fees for Bielik if we ever see that starting 11.

so it was you that won the EuroMillions ?

2 hours ago, TooFarInToTurnRed said:

Headline incoming on Derbyshire Live, “lukedcfc breaks silence”

Better than cat run over on the Burton Road

1 minute ago, mrdave85 said:

Standard for all transfer announcements no?

For us yes, as per business plan agreed by EFL

Does anyone know where he is going?

6 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Someone of twitter claims Ashley is talking to Clowes.

Makes some sense if Clowes is as reluctant as has been sggested.

 

Umm doubt if Ashley would visit in person. Can you imagine ..Mr Clowes we have a man in reception saying he would like to buy a club with you……bring him in Doris…..hello Mike fancy a cuppa…..tosh. If it happened it would not be in Clowes, it would be well away from anyone and they both know how to keep quiet 

naaa click bait 

Yes and always will be 

To be fair we (Mel) have got rid of loads and we have made a profit on others

I like Rooney, I think he did well last year. This year will be very different with different pressures and expectations. Even now without the opportunity to recruit he would be expected to win a lot more games and gain promotion. I think it would have a been a struggle for him, so best he goes now on good terms even if has left us with a Hugh hole to fill

0n the positive side we can now bring in someone who knows L1 and who can build for a the future, I still think promotion is achievable, I don’t think Rooney does.

let’s get the ownership situation sorted and look to the future and be positive 

On 12/06/2022 at 09:08, Woodley Ram said:

Thankyou , yes aware re relationships having worked in the correspondent banking sector, but worth pointing out. Not sure why he would choose a European bank unless it has a UK arm but even then why not go direct. 
 

re crypto which I agree it could be a reason, even if it was referred to the NCA/FinCen it should have cleared by now. However I’m not sure how quickly some European law enforcement agencies work, say Malta or Lithuania, so perhaps that is the issue? 

i think we re all shooting in the dark here but I’m with you I have a feeling the funds,will clear next week

Got that wrong, still don’t. Understand why the funds didn’t clear

39 minutes ago, Carnero said:

https://www.keycurrency.co.uk/swift-transfer/

An intermediary bank would be used where there is no direct relationship between the sending bank and receiving bank.

As for why the AML checks are taking so long I can only assume that it is due to the origin of funds being mainly from cryptocurrency.

Nixon says the money was "re-sent" last Monday (6th). So 1-4 working days plus additional AML checks could easily see it clear next week and the Kirchner deal completed.

Thankyou , yes aware re relationships having worked in the correspondent banking sector, but worth pointing out. Not sure why he would choose a European bank unless it has a UK arm but even then why not go direct. 
 

re crypto which I agree it could be a reason, even if it was referred to the NCA/FinCen it should have cleared by now. However I’m not sure how quickly some European law enforcement agencies work, say Malta or Lithuania, so perhaps that is the issue? 

i think we re all shooting in the dark here but I’m with you I have a feeling the funds,will clear next week

12 hours ago, Carnero said:

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/anti-money-laundering/quick-guide-to-the-mlrs

Beefed up anti-money laundering regulations came into force in 2017.

You are right. However not sure why they have sent the money via Europe or why it has been held up for so long. AMD 5 & 6 shouldn’t have made a difference to this transaction 

56 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Pretty much accurate , except the parachute payments are just an extension of the PL problem.. in order to compete in the Championship you hit against the problem that maybe six or more teams are in receipt of parachute payments and so receive an unfair subsidy.

That was Morris problem, even spending as much as he did , he couldn't outspend the likes of  Aston Villa, who were able to turn down £40 million offers for Grealish, due to parachute money and similar creative accounting to what he employed. . 

And the high wages being paid by the parachuted clubs just up the ante for the wages in a competitive market. Madness, complete  structural madness. And all this the brainchild of one Rick Parry. 

 

 

 

Spot on 

1 hour ago, Ramos said:

Cause you work at the European clearing bank and you’ve scheduled the clearance of his funds for Monday? 

No I think that is the work of a Forrest fan ?

Why do I have the feeling CKs funds will clear next week and he will be the new owner 

There is no truth that the bank employee that has stopped CK’s money is a Gump

Good luck Liam, and thank you for everything you have done at Derby

37 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Isn't that what Nixon has said? Or have I misunderstood (always possible given the chaos around). Certainly from my limited experience of these things it's the receiving institution that would be holding things up.. it isn't Kirchner bank holding things up is it? 

CK's bank would not send anything unless they knew where the funds were ok. You right the UK bank would also want to know where the funds were from. You would think that the administrators informed the bank that they were expecting a large payment (this isnt their first football admin job). 

That said, it should not be that difficult for CK to show evidence to either the UK or US bank. The one issue he might have (thinking about it) is the media around Crypto. If the bank's has no risk appetite (we don't) for it then they might want i'm to convince them its legit. 

Still think that there is nothing that cannot be overcome

11 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

20.4 million,,,?

It’s financial thresholds that trigger not the fact it’s £20m, it’s relative, I’m sure if CK put £500k through his account it could be normal, alarm bells would ring if I did it. The mantra is where is the money coming from and where is it going to. 

18 minutes ago, Papahet said:

Unless he never transferred the money to begin with ?

True, but you would hope unlikely……but the whole year has been a crock of *8888 so nothing off the cards

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

Yeah he might want a new account to keep things separate for accounting purposes that all makes sense. Nothing suspicious there surely? Proving "source of wealth" is easier said than done though, if his own bank was happy why are Q's bankers refusing the money? 

I don’t think there is @PistoldPete, the fact has been flagged means it’s a high risk transaction not that anything is wrong with CK’s money. I very much doubt if there is anything untoward with CK’s funds. I think he has been caught up by the triggers in the banking system, I just feel maybe (because I don’t know about what he has done) maybe he could have done a lot in advance 

5 minutes ago, DCFC27 said:

You can’t speak to them in advance. The reason for this is this could be seen as assisting. Can you imagine if you went to the bank and asked what information do you need to show this isn’t money laundering and then they told you…

It’s the solicitors job to gather the appropriate evidence it’s not money laundering. If they’ve done there job correctly they’ll have years worth of history as to the origin of funds and can send that on request. 
 

 

Not correct, you are mixing up speaking to the bank about a large transaction that would hit their red flags and providing evidence and the issuing of a suspicious activity report to (in this country) the NCA. If a bank does this (the SAR) then there is a tipping off offence that prevents a bank from discussing things with the client or working on the transaction. the US have a similar law.

you can talk to the bank about what you are doing with your money and providing them with proof that you are NOT money laundering 

it doesn’t have to be a lawyer. I have a house in Cyprus, I provided HSBC with evidence of where my money had come from and what it was for in advance. If I didn’t it would have been flagged as it was far more than I would normally put through by bank account. By doing this the money was transferred with any issue 

I do this for a living 

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

They are in control of the timetable.  Of course they are both responsible for the fact that it hasn't completed. CK says he has transferred the money but it hasn't been accepted by Q's bank. How is that not the responsibility of both parties that the transaction hasnt happened? 

Not heard that one and if true (which would suprise me) then that is the bank not Q and should be very easy to resolve