CornwallRam

I reckon the June wage payment is going to be a good story. From what Nixon said, it looked like it was a loan underwritten by Kirchner. 

I wonder who actually paid it? I really hope it wasn't Rooney - if there's one person that doesn't deserve to be shafted, it's him.

3 minutes ago, David said:

Thanks Mr Kirchner, really appreciate you taking up so much valuable time as the preferred bidder. If you can't tell, this is sarcasm.

But 20,000,000 views?

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Not sure I know many broke people with private planes to be fair. 

It seems to owned by his family, rather than him.

24 minutes ago, The_Sheriff said:

No reason to doubt any poster here but can someone educate me when someone last on here got some great ITK information that ended up happening?

I have a horrible feeling that he broke his leg at Leicester and he wears a very special hat.

Hard to know what to believe about Kirchner. 

It's very difficult to think that a man who has passed all the tests and has the required 20 odd million, can't actually get transfer the money from the US to here...but it's not something I've ever tried.

The obvious conclusion is that either he hasn't sent it or the 'check' has come back positive. But Nixon is adamant that the monet will arrive and Quantuma appear to still consider him a bidder. It's all very strange. 

Counterintuitively, I reckon the longer it goes on, the more likely it is to be Kirchner. 

7 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

To be fair to @Mostyn6his source was the son of God. Nobody more in the know than that.

 

I wonder if you actually 'know', or was that such a lucky random coincidence?

I think you'll find it was the son of the son of God...who is actually one of Mostyn's mates.

20 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

When does US banking start up?

About 1776, although it wouldn't be internationally recognised until 1782.

OK, it's 1968, I've been born and Brian Clough is in charge. It's bound to get sorted out now.

13 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Would you bet your life savings on that? Been told many times that a successful businessman won't pay a penny more than they need to to acquire an asset, so why is 'just under £1m' a line?

The scale of penny pinching we're talking about here already is roughly the equivalent of me refusing to buy a PS5 game at £69.99 with free next day (Sat/Sun included) delivery from Amazon because I can get it for a  £65, with £1.99 delivery and an estimated delivery between 3-5 working days from another online store. 

 

Yes, I would bet my life savings on that. 

No one is going to look to save £800k when it puts the club in an instant relegation fight. It would devalue the asset by many more times.

It would be the equivalent of saving a fiver on a PS5 game in the full knowledge that the version you were buying was going to damage your console and require at least £50 to repair it.

9 hours ago, CBX1985 said:

Doubt it.  He will accept points deduction, and decimate creditors (except Q and HMRC).

All about pushing to the wire.  The club has everything to lose, but so do the creditors.  MA has nothing to lose, so him wanting us a little works in our favour from a negotiating position - he can be nonchalant, whilst they will want paying.

The figures don't make sense unless HMRC are also squeezed. Without them, the difference between 10% and 25% to the unsecured creditors is less than £1m - which no one is going to take -15 for.

2 hours ago, atherstoneram said:

No matter what the EFL spout they cannot interfere in insolvency matters,they cannot compel creditors to take what is offered.

No, but they could vary their rules to make it easier for find a buyer.

They could renew the golden share with football creditors not getting 100%. They could allow a takeover at less than 25% for the unsecured creditors without a points deduction. They could allow just a 1 year stadium deal. They could impose a business plan which allowed the club to be competitive. They remove the embargo so we can at least renew contracts to keep some value in the club

But they won't. 

50 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Ummm what's stopping us playing the entirety of next season in administration?

There's no rules about how long a club is allowed to be in administration for - look at Wigan, Portsmouth etc 

Why are the EFL suddenly getting all precious about us potentially going into next season in administration, they weren't particularly bothered about it for the past season.

The rule is that you can't start consecutive seasons in adminstration, so in theory it should be fine. However, all clubs have to show a realistic business plan to get through the season, whether in administration or not. If they don't, they are kicked out of the league. That's very difficult to do in administration.

This was what actually killed Bury. 

2 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

Seems that way. Good for them. I always did like the EFL.

So the EFL are going to overrule court appointment insolvency practitioners?

I can't see any problems there at all. ?

There are two different versions of a Pheonix club. 

The first would be Where a new owner bought the name and  badge from the administrators and transferred them to a new company. It would be done with EFL approval. The club would still be Derby County Football Club although the company behind it would be different. It would also be debt free, but would also need tie up some small technical details like finding players, coaches, a ground and training facilities. 

To get EFL approval, I would expect the new owner to agree a higher payment than might be expected, so the creditors at least got something. This club would then have the golden share. FA protocol is for a three division demotion, so we should drop to the Conference. However, it was muted that there was an agreement for a League 2 place.

The problem here us that it is so late in the day to organise. The new owners would still need to show funding for the season plus a ten year stadium lease, and a League 2 club would suddenly find themselves in League 1, leaving their own business plan in tatters.

Then there's the other type of Pheonix. Effectively this would just be a new club. It could have a similar name, and would be likely to attract a decent fan base due to the need for football in Derby/shire. 

In theory it should apply for entrance into tier 11 - probably Midland League Division 2. However, semi pro clubs tend to fold regularly. It's likely that there'd be a vacancy a couple of divisions higher for a club with 5k plus supporters. 

This is probably a lot easier to organise. It would only need a few thousand £ and it's not going to cause the issues with fixture lists and business plans at this level. The downside is that it would feel a lot less like Derby County. 

59 minutes ago, Phuket Ram said:

Really??  I can’t think of any way that could possibly happen, for many reasons.

Players become free agents - the last time I checked. Unless the EFL are engaged in modern day slavery…

Where did you get this information from? 

How is it modern day slavery compared to a club owning player registrations?

It's rule 66.1 of the EFL regulations 2021-22

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/b3cd34c726c341ca9636610aa4503172/regulations-season-2021-22-final.pdf

10 minutes ago, CBX1985 said:

My point regards liquidation and the threat thereof. DCFC brand has considerable value as a football club; it has no value if it is not a football club (and has been liquidated).  Going to division 14, no one is going to pay for that brand in that league.

Players have no value if they can leave on liquidation. 

 

On liquidation, the players registrations are transferred to the EFL, who then sell them on to ensure that all footballing debts are repaid.

So, it is not quite true that they have zero value.

It's also possible that the administrators could decide to liquidate, sell the remaining players for whatever they can get, and liquidate afterwards. That way, the value would have been converted to cash and that cash would be an asset. 

I still think that our big problem is not actually the size of our debt, it's that most of it isn't to unsecured creditors, so administration has done very little to reduce the debt...that and the ground not being included. 

15 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

The evidence is Luton have made profits in the Championship & then gone onto to finish top 6. How can that be wishful thinking & what do you know about their as yet unreleased accounts?!

Wages are inflated in the Championship because owners keep paying them. Owners that have a long term plan, put appropriate people in roles to achieve that plan & stand firm with financial discipline will be able to achieve success & do it within a budget. Too many owners of the larger clubs in the EFL are far too short term in their approach & can't abide any difficult spells as they don't want fans getting on their back. So they discard decent managers, make panic signings & pay the going rate for bang average players & 'Championship' experience.

Your earlier post referenced the difficulties Burton & Rotherham had staying within a budget & remaining competitive in the Championship but that would be entirely expected given their small crowds & revenue. To reiterate, Derby have a natural advantage over the vast majority of EFL clubs - not pretending it would be easy but our Academy successes & the value signings we were able to make this season on low wages point the way forward.

 

Have you any evidence that Luton made an operating profit? They did make a £3m profit in the season that they made £9m profit on transfers. That's not going to be sustainable over the medium term.

Obviously all Championship owners are deeply stupid - why did none of them think that all hey needed to do was stop paying the wages demanded by the players? 

Agree that Derby are a bigger club than Burton and Rotherham, but we also have bigger overheads. In a world where sustainability is possible, Derby County would have a natural advantage - but in the actual world, we don't because all other clubs are spending more than they can afford.

I'm not sure last season helps your argument. We finished 18th (?) with a smattering of expensive players, cheap signings and academy graduates. The sustainability model does not allow the expensive players and it's highly unlikely that a £5m per year outlay on an academy would be within budget. We also weren't close to competing at the sharp end with that squad. Take away Lawrence, Bielik, Joswiak (maybe not) and Byrne and it could easily be a relegation squad. That's not to disparage any of last  year's players or management - they all did fantastically well. 

Football does have to sort the mess out. It's a ridiculous situation, but it won't be sorted out by a single club ploughing a virtuous  furrow - that's Canute-like delusion (yes, I do know it wasn't his delusion he was proving). Worryingly, I think it might be a bug club getting liquidated which actually provides the shock to sort it out.

43 minutes ago, GenBr said:

In your first sentence you disagree and then in your second paragraph you agree with me. As i said the premier league has nothing to do with being a sustainable club. Just because some owners want to gamble and spend big to get to the big time is irrelevant and it certainly doesnt mean Derby cant be sustainable. 

If it means bouncing between divisions then so be it. You keep citing examples of sustainable clubs and then stating its impossible to do. What you actually seem to be arguing is that you personally think its impossible to be sustainable and get promoted to the Prem. 

Yes the blokes from the pub was an exaggeration, but thanks for taking it literally. Derby has more than enough income to create a competitive squad in both the championship and league one. There is absolutely zero reason we should be losing tens of millions of pounds every year.

The problem with Mel Morris's regime was that he put way too much money in, didnt pay the bills, didnt follow the rules, didnt run us sustainably and breached ffp. He ran up bills we had no chance of paying back.

If you can't see the link between the Premier League and the inflated costs of the EFL there is no point in this discussion. We will simply have to agree to disagree.

If we had beaten Villa, would Mel have put too much in? We are not in this mess because of how much Mel put in - we are in this mess because it didn't work and he decided to bail out.

Sustainability is the difference between promotion and not. 

Running at break even and remaining in the Championship for a sustained period has never been achieved. Maybe all owners of Championship clubs are just idiots? Maybe it's a run of bad luck. IMO it's more likely to be a structural weakness in the fiscal realties of the division.

44 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

Respectfully disagree. It is possible for Derby to be self-sufficient when you compare our revenue to that of most of the EFL - we would be able to self fund decent wages & occasional transfers whilst rivals are having to get into debt to try and match us. Yes, it would probably mean selling young players at the optimal time to move the club along as a whole but it is certainly possible.

Luton have managed it, finished top 6 this season & they get a fraction of our crowds/revenue;

https://footballeconomyv2.blogspot.com/2021/05/luton-town-in-profit.html

We wouldn't be able to compete with the clubs funded by parachute payments but that was the case anyway, whether self-sufficient or with an owner throwing money around. 

 

Unfortunately, that completely disregards all evidence. It is just wishful thinking - IMO Luton will not be 'that club' when the accounst are revealed.

Wages and transfer fees are so inflated in the Championship that it is impossible to be sustainable and remain in the division in the medium term without some 'scheme' eg Watford and Wolves.

33 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Derby County could easily become self sufficient and i'm not sure why you think it has anything to do with the premier league?

20 blokes from the pub can be our first team if we wanted to. It would be very easy for us to have a wage bill within our means and it doesnt mean we have to be totally unsuccesful either as Luton have shown.

I really don't understand why so many on here are stuck in the Mel Morris mindset which dictates piddling money away to be the only viable business model

I disagree with you.

It has everything to do with the Premier League - every sizable club outside the Premier League is trying to get into it because the funding is so good and winning games is supposed to be the aim. Parachute payments instantly give several clubs an advantage in the Championship, so ambitious non-parachute clubs are forced to pay unsustainable wages to get a competitive squad. This inflationary trend then trickles down the table and even down the divisions. Unless they have a lucky windfall like selling a player for £20m, every Championship club makes a loss without parachute payments - and most of the latter still do. 

Clubs like Burton and Peterborough who try to run a sustainable wage bill in the division get relegated -  not always instantly, but within a couple of seasons.

20 blokes form the pub are not going to convince 20,000 supporters to part with £20+ a game. They are not going to sell enough pies or shirts to make the outsourced contracts work. They are also not going to get any prize money from cup runs or get Sky to cover their games. What would happen is that the clubs turnover would shrink to a tiny fraction of it's current level - we couldn't afford the facilities that we have - that is not sustainability.

What have Luton shown? They haven't been promoted and haven't yet published the accounts for last season. I seem to remember little Bournemouth being held up as a sustainable model - then it was revealed that the lost £38.3m

The problem with Mel Morris's regime was not that he put money - it was what he spent it on and the fact that he stopped putting money in.

Belief in sustainability in the Championship is delusional and goes against all evidence.

League 1 could be a little different for a club of Derby's size. Although our overheads are high, our turnover should be towards the top end of the division. With luck and brilliant management we could get promoted whilst breaking even, but that only propels us into the most unsustainable division in the world.

7 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

We agree on the need for Derby to be self sufficient & to end the days of big spending (not that it would be possible under the EFL agreed business plan in any case). I think folk are probably more concerned about Kirchner's very noticeable silence this week & the news Stateside about unpaid Slync.io wages & team sponsorship. That does not bode well for his future custodianship of DCFC, if that does end up happening.

I think you might be surprised about Quantuma this weekend - a combination of the increasingly terse EFL statements & finding themselves in the eye of a media storm will have shaken them. No one else to blame at this stage. I fully expect they will be fielding enquiries from interested parties this weekend even if any resolution/news wouldn't be announced until a week day

As to your final point, I don't know by what mechanism Kirchner could back out the deal & avoid contractual liability if he has exchanged contracts & apparently sent the money.

Derby County will never be self-sufficient until the financial gap between the Premier League and the EFL is closed, or we actually get promoted to the Premier League. 

Football is broken and it is beyond the scope of a single club to fix it. 

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

You see that’s where we differ. You seem to be clinging to belief that he has sent the money and it’s just being delayed by the various financial crime prevention checks. I now don’t think he’s sent it (hope I’m proved wrong by the way. I’ll take zero pleasure from being proved right). It would be easy for him to prove the money has been sent but I get the impression that he can’t do so. 
 

To continue the analogy, I think he set off on the journey but, for one reason or another, he’s decided he doesn’t want to or can’t complete the journey. Rather than be honest and tell the person he is visiting that he’s not coming now he’s messaging them with reasons why he’s been delayed. 

Personally, I think he's trying to borrow the money to fund it, but the deal in principle hasn't been converted to an actual loan.

I don't think Kirchner has the cash himself, but he does have a good history of raising finance to fund his expansion. 

I believe that his plan is to generate a profit and repay the loans from them. I don't think he fully understands the distorted market that is EFL football. IMO, if he does complete this deal, it will end in disaster. 

1 hour ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

Spot on mate. I might be a bit old school but all the stuff on twitter, parading at PP, his bird getting involved with Forest fans on twitter when they got promotted allegedly (i dont do twitter, @RoyMac5 is my goto man on here ?) did not impress me.If he'd done his business quietly, discretly like a Swiss banker that would have given me more confidence in the bloke running our club. And Swiss bankers have money.

Didn't this all start when Mel tried to sell the club to a Swiss banker who couldn't complete the deal and got arrested?

1 minute ago, StarterForTen said:

So Admins sell all contracted players that can produce a fee. Then liquidate for whatever they can get as, with the cash in the bank, they get first dibs on it to pay their bill.

'DCFC 2022 Ltd' buys the 'assets' (brand, badge, etc) and negotiates with the EFL to enter at L2 level next season.

Is that the Mike Ashley plan?

I suspect it might be too late for next season.  That's the big danger now. Liquidation might have meant a Pheonix in League 2, which I believe would have been a better proposition than a hamstrung L1 club, but now I think Liquidation will be the actual end.?

Look on the bright side; Wigan went through four preferred bidders. We might only be 25% into this rollercoaster ride ?