CornwallRam

4 hours ago, nottingram said:

But in both cases the buyers will have paid £30m for the club with no stadium then have to pay annual leasing costs?

Always struck me was that the issue was essentially that if the buyer was paying £30m they would want the stadium included within that 

I still think that there's an added layer of complexity around the MSD charge, which is against both the club and the stadium. If Mel retains the stadium, I don't think he'd settle the loan, so there would still be a charge against the club.

If Mel 'stop paying when I get bored' Morris, doesn't pay the loan, MSD could theoretically reposses the club - which no bidder us going to risk. If the City Council buy it, the loan is cleared, and the charge removed.

I do think it's this charge which is the main issue - no buyer wants to pay £50m and equally, none want to pay £30m and leave the stadium in Mel's hands.

3 hours ago, Boycie said:

Won’t the council pay Mel 22million which is exactly the same as on offer to the current interested buyers?

Or will the council get it cheaper?

Apparently the City Council's Ambassador for Businesses has advised them that it will be better if they pay £81m for it.

Just imagine only being paid £3m to sort out the complicated and convoluted mess that Mel Morris has left. Honestly, if Quantuma can sort this out and give our club a future after Mel's kamikaze tenure, then they'll deserve every penny.

15 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

I sort of agree and (as a fan) wonder why we are such an unattractive proposition for a buyer. Outside of the prem we are one of a small number of clubs capable of generating a sufficient yearly income to cover the majority if not all of our expenditure. Throw in a good season with the possibility of success and the support will remain as solid as ever (even in L1).

But I am a fan and not a buyer, and I understand that in business you try tp get the lowest price possible....but it still baffles me why Q are struggling to sell the Club and that we may "disappear" as a result.

We really aren't even close to running sustainably. We are effectively too big for the Championship - big stadium, massive training infrastructure, expensive academy. It all takes a lot of upkeep and it wipes out the advantage our extra 5k of extra support.

We need an expensive squad because we need to be going for promotion. There is absolutely no prospect of Derby County ever running profitability outside the Premier League - unless there is a major overall of the way English professional football works 

Ultimately, the value in the club is as a Premier League club. The buyer's will be calculating the likely costs of achieving that. I think that the only way we get a buyer is if we are available at a massively discounted price - otherwise buying Ipswich, Sunderland or Preston is a far better option.

3 hours ago, Big Trav said:

Also to clear up a bit of confusion there are 2 loans from MSD. One is secured against the stadium but this is a personal loan directly between MM and MSD. The loan between DCFC and MSD is 20 million and secured against the training ground and other facilities. So MM wants to pay off his personal loan with the stadium sale. Derby need to pay off their loan too. It’s a messy situation. 

I don't think you are correct.

There were indeed two loans, but there might actually be three now.

The first is reportedly for £17.5m and is secured against the stadium, the club, the academy and the club's share of the catering business. 

The second is for a smaller amount, and be more like a flexible loan with an agreed maximum. This is secured against the lease and buildings at Moor Farm and the player registrations. 

MSD have also part funded the administration costs. This could be a separate loan, or it could be from drawing on extra funds from the 2nd loan. 

Quite how these loans add up to the £22m that Mel needs to pay off MSD is not clear. Is it just the two totals added together, or is it loan 1 plus 3 and the Moor Farm loan is a separate negotiation? 

I'm still struggling to understand why there are interested parties, but seemingly no acceptable bids.

Surely Quantuma have given the credible potential owners a series of minimum figures which will secure the bits of the deal - eg, £62m gets the club, stadium, golden share and no points deduction,  £33m gets you the golden share, the club on -15 points, but no stadium, £12m gets you the club, but no stadium or golden share... etc

The 'bidders' must all know the figures by now, and none of them appear willing or able to offer enough to get the club in the format they want. So why are they still interested? The debts aren't going to get less, so their bids aren't suddenly going to become acceptable.

So why haven't they made a viable bid or walked away?

Am I overthinking this? The statement mentions 'transfer of the golden share'. I thought that if the club exits administration with the company intact, the golden share is already in place. However, there would need to be a transfer if the old company was liquidated and the club transferred to a new one in a court approved restructuring plan. Is that a hint?

9 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

There is no way the council will buy the ground when they can't find the funds to run council services as they should.

I have a completely unfounded suspicion that Mel will gift the ground to the City Council and the club will lease it at £1 a year, but with full responsibility for the upkeep. 

In this scenario, Gadsby then leads a consortium who put in the minimum amount to exit administration and provide guarantees for the rest. We then spend a few years in League 1 with a shoestring budget, but we've still got a club.

40 minutes ago, davenportram said:

If buyers aren’t willing to rent the stadium MM must be offering to charge a large fee - as maintenance and running cost would be his responsibility. Offer low rent and this option becomes viable in the short term

 

if he gifted the stadium he’d have to stump up the £20m personal guaranteed loan against it.

 

if he doesn’t do this and the club goes under he obviously has no real care for the club or it’s fans, and is just wanting to runaway from his “personal guarantee” for the loan that he was bragging about doing for the better of the club.

I read somewhere that MSD were charging 8% interest. If the loan is £22m, then the interest is going to be something like £1.75m per year. So that's going to be the minimum rent, assuming that it's an interest only loan.

1 hour ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

Not read the article due to pay wall but I’m taking two things from this tweet at least. Percy has no update on things (either cause there is no movement or there is no leak yet) AND finally a prominent national media outlet is plainly calling out the endgame and how it needs resolving asap. It’s the most direct article heading I’ve seen thus far. Maybe it’s the start of the final pressure on all parties to resolve it. 

I thought Percy was a Forest fan? Looking at his picture there, he looks to be very fond of the 'Pies. 

44 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

£80M or £22M or is it a bottomless pit of money if there is no club to play at the said stadium

I wonder if the stadium could be used profitability as a non-football venue?

You would generate income from the retail units. You could trade a couple of licensed premises and hire out the rest of the hospitality units for functions. 

Then there's the main arena. Without the need to maintain a pitch, you could stage concerts, boxing, monster trucks, Top Gear Live type events regularly. You could also lay a temporary pitch if you staged American Football or some big egg chasing event. Then if you put a roof on you can use all year round and go for exhibitions and 'indoor' sports like snooker and darts - don't need to use the whole arena.

The big advantage is we are close to everywhere and have an excellent communications infrastructure. You could even do a 'festival' using PPS and the velodrome. 

It would be a risky venture, but I'd say it's possible that the stadium COULD have a life beyond Derby County. 

6 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

But only part of the HMRC debt is preferred no? 

I believe it's only the first £28m or so!

3 hours ago, davenportram said:

Erm - the golden share is a red herring

 

1) exit Admin under an agreement that does not meet EFL minimum results in points deduction but the golden share is transferred

2) exit admin and meet EFL requirements golden share is transferred
 

if football creditors paid in full and HMRC and other creditors agree a payment plan for what’s left then golden share is transferred in either scenario.
 

There is no threshold for golden share transfer

 

Unfortunately Dav, I don't think you're correct on that.

The golden share is contingent on paying the football creditors 100%. The problem is that there is legally a queue of other creditors in front of them.

Quantuma and HMRC definitely come before them. Both MSD loans also do, but might have alternative security which could alter things.

If the bids don't satisfy the creditors that outrank the football creditors, then they haven't reached the threshold to retain the golden share.

That said, it's pretty much totally dependent on HMRC, and Quantuma already said that they won't agree to anything until they see speak to the preferred bidder...so Andy is definitely making it up.

7 hours ago, Sparkle said:

The EFL policy isn’t designed or even consider3d large debt hence why we will get shafted again before they revise it to potentially suit others 

How does anyone know?

I can't find it published anywhere.

So far I have gleaned:

Clubs aren't allowed to start 2 consecutive seasons in adminstration.

Clubs get a 12 point penalty for entering administration. 

Clubs get an enforced business plan, with a 3 point penalty for breaking it.

Clubs get some level of embargo whilst in administration. 

There's a 15 point penalty for exiting administration without paying 25% upfront or 35% over time to creditors. 

Failure to pay 100% to football creditors means expulsion from the league - only UK parties appear to be football creditors. 

The EFL can adjudicate on who a football creditor is.

Clubs have to agree to a 2 year business plan to exit administration compliantly.

Anyone know of any more bits of the policy?

13 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

His equity is worth nothing and he’s selling it for nothing. 
Looks like what’s happened is:  Q had no unqualified bids that cleared the bar. (Talk about mismanaging the process...) And no bidders wanted a div 1 club on -9 or worse. So Q  had to go back to MM and say ‘sorry if the club is to avoid liquidation you need to throw in the 20m deposit you have with MSD.  And he said “OK. But if I do that and the buyer makes out like bandits I need a share of the upside obviously.” It’s probably what you would have said in his shoes 

Only slightly more credible than the Clooney rumour ? Really ?
 

I can pretty much guarantee that your Mel hypothesis is wrong? I'm not ITK or an insolvency expert, but I still know that it's wrong.

Why? Because it makes perfect sense, and this is Derby County, where nothing ever actually makes sense. ?

17 minutes ago, Curtains said:

That’s ridiculous 

I don't think it's ridiculous at all, given the inherent ridiculousness of supporting a football club in the first place.

When I first went to see Derby County, Clough and Taylor were in charge, O'Hare and Hector were upfront, we played at the BBG, our colours were white and navy blue and I don't think the Ramarena was even open - although I was too young to remember much beyond the noise and the smells.

The point is that there is almost nothing remaining of the club which I first supported - the same badge and the same city, but not much else. Consequently, supporting a club isn't a straightforward choice - it's more of an unconscious decision to continue a habit, maybe verging on an addiction. It's not a logical choice. As with any addiction, there will be moments when you question the costs and the benefits. With an alcoholic, such introspection is often caused by a maxed out credit card, a drink driving conviction or a damaged relationship.

I'd say for many, support for Derby County is at just such a crossroads. If we're relegated, some just won't find the motivation to get to matches or watch on Sky - and no, they should not be derided; there's no correct way to be a supporter. For others, having a tainted figure in charge of the club will be that thing that breaks the addiction - some would rather no club than a continuing reminder of what they've lost. Others would prefer a 'clean' club in tier 11 than an infected one in tier 2. I don't think that Mel would be the only potential owner who would repel a significant percentage of the fanbase either - Russian oligarchs,  people with ties to repressive regimes and neo-Nazis would also be the final straw for many.

Personally, Mel remaining in charge wouldn't stop me from supporting Derby County, but it would stop me renewing my season ticket. So for the original question; if the choice is final liquidation and oblivion or Mel Morris, I'd chose Mel Morris. If the choice is between Mel Morris and a continuation Phoenix club in the NPL, then I'd take the local derbies with Matlock and Buxton.

1 hour ago, Sparkle said:

Not that unrealistic it really isn’t - does he still live in Derbyshire?

No, he lives in Kuwait?

Terrible news. Taken far too young.

Whenever someone who has contributed to the good bits of my life passes, I always feel like I want to say something to commemorate and acknowledge, but whatever I write feels a bit pointless. 

RIP Taylor

I reckon the Mel Morris story is a very clever piece of expectation management by Quantuma. They've leaked the story because we won't like the actual PB, but will be relived that they're better than MM.

So who is only a bit better than Mel? - I'm going for Fawaz

48 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

So you think the Chinese are mystery backers, ok I’ll pass it on.

The Chinese backers have passed on it - we're doomed ?

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

The article makes no sense.

"Unless a substantial offer is made by Friday, which will pay off all Derby's debts, including nearly £30 million to HMRC and £20 million to American loan company MSD, Wayne Rooney and his squad will start next season with heavy sanctions imposed".

There is no requirement for Derby to pay off al their debts to HMRC or to MSD in order to avoid sanctions from EFL.  

Difficult to say that definitively. I have been unable to find a copy of the EFL insolvency policy anywhere on-line. I have read  journalists report that the rules are now aligned to legislation and that requires any settlement to be agreed by HMRC as the preferential creditor.

Any excuse to post this. One of my favourite covers.

I wonder if we would be allowed to start next season still in adminstration? We would not be allowed to start 2 seasons in adminstration, but that wouldn't be the case.

It would obviously need the EFL to loosen the embargo, but if they allowed us to sign free agents and feeless loans upto a certain wage, maybe £3.5 k per week, we ought to be able to cobble together a squad for League 1. Maybe a wage bill of £8m? That should be covetable with our income from walk up tickets - assuming not allowed to sell STs, and TV money.

Hopefully it won't come to that, but better than liquidation if there is a bid still being negotiated. 

1 hour ago, Brammie Steve said:

I honestly can't see Wayne being tempted away from the Rams by a glamour club like Stoke City!

He is doing his managerial cred no harm by remaining loyal to DCFC  and showing coolness under fire!

Money is clearly not a major factor as he did not show serious interest in managing a club like Everton as a fledgling manager.

Rooney Rooney IN IN IN!

He'll be leading Everton's promotion bid next season. 

Derby Telegraph reporting that we'll get compensation for him. I thought the rule was that you only got compensation for U24 players if you had offered them a contract of equal or greater terms. Given that we can't offer any contracts, I'm surprised that we get anything.