CornwallRam

Just now, Gritstone Tup said:

So why did Bury drop to tier 10?

Because they are not a proper pheonix club. They were formed before Bury were liquidated. 

1 hour ago, duncanjwitham said:

I don't think it works like that.  Going from the EFL's answers here (since we don't have their actual insolvency policy to look at):

http://www.leytonorientfanstrust.com/documents/LOFT_SGM_Mar17_QA.pdf

The -15 is normally applied the following season.

Interesting that it says the guidelines for  a pheonix club involve dropping no more than three divisions. 

Starting again in the Conference doesn't seem too disastrous as worse case scenarios go.

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Plus: Admin fees, MSD loan, Stadium rent
Minus: Transfer instalments paid

The maximum including everything but excluding change to transfer fees due will be £75m.

£20m for the stadium can be pushed down the road if the PB is willing to rent the stadium (I assume at a rate equal to the interest on the loan c£2.3m iirc). Therefore...

Assuming HMRC and Football creditors will be paid in full: £50m
Assuming HMRC are willing to go as low as 25%: £30m

It's this £30m figure which needs to be met to avoid the 15 point deduction next season.

To get everything, you're looking at something like the following breakdown:
MSD - £25m
Transfers - £8.4m (minus what has been paid)
HMRC - £7m
Admins - £5m
Other Football creditors - £2.3m
Other unsecured creditors: £1.6m

The only other thing is the 'soft loan' from Mel - I think I saw it quoted at £140m. Everyone seems to have discounted that as a debt, so I'm guessing that it's unenforceable. 

It's never referred to as 'shares', so I'd love to know how it has been excluded from the figures - has Mel voluntarily written it off?

At this point I'm still 90% convinced that we'll avoid liquidation. 

I'm about 60% convinced that we'll start next season on -15.

But I'm 100% sure that in about 25 years, those of us that are still here will discussing Derby County's latest existential crisis and comparing it 1985 and 2022. It's the Derby way.

8 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

They've accepted it as they've all decided that they won't pay the amount of money required for the club to avoid another points deduction. 

Is accepted the correct word to use in that case? 

I think they've probably decided that the club isn't worth, say £60m, but is probably a worthwhile gamble at (e.g.) £25m. As any figure below £60m (guesstimate) attracts -15 points, they might as well see if they can drive down the £25m to as low a figure as possible. 

I daresay that all the 'bidders' would prefer to get the club for £25m with no points deduction, but that's not an option (in my scenario) so they have tacitly accepted the -15.

8 minutes ago, Alty_Ram said:

Have we definitely received bids ? (serious question). People mentioned 2 bids and one dropout but it just sounded like heresay.

There's nothing definite about anything. The Binnies, Ashley's PR guy, Kirchner and Appleby have all confirmed their interest. Whether any of them have actually made official bids is anyone's guess. 

I'm still optimistic as we have three credible bidders. My guess would be that all have accepted the 15 point penalty option and are trying to drive the price down as far as possible, but still offering slightly more than the other two.

The deadline thing worries me though. I believe that we had 4 bids tabled for the club before administration and seem to have had four more since. We don't seem to have a problem attracting potential buyers, yet none have completed. 

Maybe a couple were fantasists, but surely not all? Rooney has made several positive statements about takeovers being close to completion. Mel believed sales were close and didn't leave enough cash in the business to cover the payroll.  Now Quantuma are making statements and ending up looking foolish. 

It's almost as if, as soon as a buyer finds out the truth about something, they instantly turn from enthusiasts with open cheque books to unexpectedly disappearing into the ether. Surely there can't be anything left that is a surprise? Does Mel stipulate that he'll only hand over the stadium keys to someone who can beat him at naked mud wrestling?Have we upset a drugs cartel somewhere and investors keep waking up next to horses heads? Maybe they're being put off the apparition of the white lady of Chadd sidings who is forever looking for lover?

1 minute ago, atherstoneram said:

So would lose our place in the league,if you can just do a restructuring plan why are the administrators doing all this negotiating if you can carry on as before.

Because the preferred alternative is a CVA which would allow us to exit administration without a points deduction. The problem is that it might not be possible to get a buyer to pay that much.

The restructuring plan would almost certainly attract a 15 point penalty, but would keep our place in the EFL as long as we settled 100% of the footballing debts.

18 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

Yes but HMRC can be represented in court to say they will not accept that and will proceed to issue a winding up order. We don't know whether the HMRC offered an agreement to pay with MM which he refused or renaged on. They won't just roll over and accept what they are offered as much as some people keep using the ethos that something is better than nothing.

They can't issue a winding up order if we exit via a restructuring plan because the existing company would be wound up anyway. The club would be owned by a new company which would not owe HMRC a penny.

15 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I'm not sure this is right at all (I'm not an expert etc, so fully prepared to admit I'm wrong here)...

The requirement for a CVA has apparently been dropped from the EFL insolvency policy (https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/features/item/football-creditors-rule-is-the-football-league-s-new-insolvency-policy-a-step-in-the-right-direction).  There's nothing stopping us using some kind of restructuring plan now, with just the requirements on minimum percentages paid etc.  The issue with 'Boro wasn't that we weren't allowed to cram down as such, it was that we were using it to squash what the EFL deemed to be a potential football debt out of existence.

As I understand the cram-down thing, the point is to avoid paying creditors that wouldn't receive anything anyway if we were liquidated. So I don't see how HMRC affects that at all - they're the biggest single unsecured creditor.  Any cramming down would be on the smaller creditors, and would be dependant on us having an agreement with HMRC in place.  Either HMRC are going to agree some percentage with a new buyer, or we get liquidated. There is no middle ground here.  So we're back on @PistoldPete's point, that there's no point in a new buyer losing 15 points over maybe a couple of million.

I don't think you're correct here. The point of the cram down is that it removes the distinction between creditors. Consequently, HMRC have to accept what the court agree to. 

14 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

What is this based on? Your HMRC calculations have been questioned already?

Not sure I understand your point Roy? All the evidence points to us owing just under £30m to HMRC and there's about £10m of unsecured debt, but my understanding is that about £2m of that is actually football debt, so will need to be settled in full if we're to remain in the EFL.

Obviously these are ball park figures - how could they be anything other without seeing the current books?

26 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

How will it save £30m?

100% of £30m to HMRC and 25% of £8m to the unsecured is around £32m.

15% to both is £5.7m.

32-5.7 is about £30m if you squint a bit ?

42 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

How do you work that out? If we pay 25p in the £1 to unsecured crediors (who are about £10m excluding HMRC), that costs us £2.5 million. If we pay only 24 p in the £1 that saves us about £100k. But would probably mean penalty points, so not worth considering, surely? . 

As I mentioned earlier, it has very little to do with the unsecured creditors - the £10m appears to include some football debts, so I think the real figure is about £8m.

It's all about HMRC. If they'll settle for 25%, then we might be able to get an EFL compliant CVA. However, I don't think they will. They fought for too long to get the power to demand 100% to instantly give that power away again. And if HMRC were willing to back down, I believe we'd have a preferred bidder by now and be days away from a new owner.

The point is, with Boro out of the way we can do a cram down. If that's going to ruled non-compliant by the EFL, we might as well go for the minimum a court will grant, rather than 25%. We'll get a points deduction whether we pay 15% or 25%.

56 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

£30m ?

The point of taking the 15 point penalty is that it will save about £30m. It will also dampen expectations and give the new owners a year where promotion isn't a possibility.

24 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

It doesn't need it. There's no reason to waste a season.

£30m ?

9 hours ago, TomTom92 said:

Baffling that Ashley or whoever would take the -15 points. It makes next season a complete waste of time and another depressing experience.

It actually gives the new owner a pressure free year to restructure the club as they see fit. If Ashley takes over, every player we enquire about will be double the price. In this scenario, Ashley could instruct the manager and recruitment team to only sign bargains, thus setting us up as a club that can't be held to ransom.

In the medium term it could be beneficial and would save about £30m in the short term. Another season of treading water is obviously frustrating for us fans, but I can see some logic for an owner. 

8 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Hoskin told us that HMRC will give us a break because we are a ‘community asset’. So don’t understand where you’re coming from on this. I suspect HMRC will settle for 25% if there is no more than that available 

HMRC will not agree to anything until a preferred bidder us in place. They may settle for 25%, but if they had already indicated that, then I can see no reason why a PB has not already been announced. 

I don't believe that HMRC would have fought to gain preferential creditor status to effectively give it away again in the first insolvency afterwards - that is what the precedent of setting for 25% would mean.  Every club is a community asset, so that argument is entirely spurious. 

I believe that the position is that the 'cram down' offered to the court in the restructuring plan will treat HMRC as an unsecured creditor and the court will accept that as the creditors will gain more than from liquidation and the club is a community asset. 

I

That article misses the point. It's about the HMRC debt. They effectively claim that the issue is the unsecured creditors. That is only a small difference.  Paying them 15% rather 25% is probably less that a £million. No bidder is going to lose 15 points to save that.

The difference is that a CVA gives HMRC a veto. I don't believe that HMRC will agree to anything less than 100%. That means about £60m to get a CVA. 

I believe that the viable alternative is a restructuring plan which squeezes HMRC into being just another unsecured creditor. That is against current EFL guidelines and will result in a 15 point penalty, but should enable a takeover to go through for about £30m.

Honestly, I don't think we need to worry about the existence of the club - there are three credible parties able to complete a takeover.  However, I can't see any way that we will avoid the 15 point penalty. 

6 hours ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

It was my understanding the £5 million none refundable deposit was a condition of being named PB.

If the above is correct what would be the point of putting in a bid if you were not prepared to pay the £5 million and be named PB ?

Indeed, but that's only relevant if one of the bidders agrees to it. If none do, then the administrators aren't going to turn around and say, well we'll just have to liquidate then. What they'll do is get the preferred bidder to agree to fund the club as needed.

I just don't think anyone will risk £5m upfront. The bidders are far more likely to say, we'll put in what we need to, but reserve the right to walk away if we can't agree deal. So, if they found a whole heap of problems, they could withdraw after a fortnight, with 4.75m still intact.

I don't think that any bidder will front up £5m. With HMRC not settled and maybe £70m needed, plus the Mel to settle with for the ground, the whole negotiation could easily make any take over non-viable. No one is going risk flushing £5m away. 

In my opinion, what will happen is that a preferred bidder will agree to cover the costs during the exclusivity period, in exchange for the final say on all decisions. 

48 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.

That was the last comment in the article.

I then made the mistake of scrolling through adverts ranging from teeth straightening to hair implants to read said comments. 

When I got to about page 7 without sign of any comments then gave up. 

Am happy to give my comments but imagine they would be banned from this site. 

Given that those adverts depend on your browsing history, I think we all know a bit more about Tyler's appearance. 

I think what defines us is that we're the biggest small club in the world.

We don't have a massive conurbation to draw support from. We don't have a prime London or coastal location to attract players. We don't have decades of European football that have brought us fame and fortune. 

We're from an unfashionable, small city in a beautiful, if a little neglected, mid-sized county. Go a few miles East, West or South and you find other similar sized clubs - meaning we're hemmed in to Derbyshire. All this limits our growth as a club. We are, and always have been a team for locals (including newly arrived locals) - or the descendents of locals.

The uniqueness of Derby County is the reach within the city and county. I would happily bet that a higher percentage of Derbyshire's population have a Rams allegiance than any other comparable county and club. The most remarkable thing about this city, is that for such an unremarkable place, it has a huge football club, which is vibrant heart of both city and county.

I  think the reason we are such a roller-coaster of a club is that on paper we're as big as a mid-table Premier League club, but our reach is only ever going to be local. Owners come in wanting to make us global. The problem is that although we're enormous in Ripley and Alvaston, we struggle to even dominate in Long Eaton, and we're non-existant in Ashby - so selling shirts in China or packing stadiums on a US tour is never going to happen. 

Is it just me that's slightly concerned about the non-Derby MPs showing an interest?

I have a feeling that the EFL and football governance in general is on the 'hit list' for a lot of politicians. What better way to gain almost universal support for a complete overhaul than a big club failing completely? Especially when that big club isn't from London and doesn't have the international clout of the Manchesters or Liverpool. I am slightly worried that it would suit a lot of agendas if Derby County died.

I don't think it would help the EFL - but they do want to make an example of us for trying to get around FFP and Mel daring to criticise them. I suspect that they want to be able to point to Derby County in League 2 to say look what happens if you step out of line. I actually think the success of the team in making survival a possibility is potentially counter productive and making the EFL find reasons to harden the punishments and add conditions to emerging from administration. If we meekly went down, accepted the business plan, embargo and points decuction for next season, then all the EFL and parasite club stuff would vanish.

46 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

You could simply define the word animals in  the Definition section of the legal document 

“Animals” shall mean all non human living entities 

 

??

Trees?

Just how can the games be so enjoyable, when we're in such a desperate situation? Even without the points deductions, the embargo should have relegated us. Yet we're still fighting and looking closer to the great escape with every game.

Hats off to you Wayne Rooney - you've earned your place in Derby County folklore.

Tonight, the whole team contributed. Festy was the real difference though. He's like the secret love child of Paulo Wanchope and roadrunner.