Phuket Ram

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Did you transfer £20 million?  That might take more than 3 hours, especially if you have to find the £20m first.   

They managed to send £3bn to Chelsea without a problem... I'd imagine £20m is a walk in the park compared to that. But yeah, I guess they did actually have the money in the first place... always makes it easier.

In a care home maybe… 

11 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I’ve bought 4 different houses in my lifetime. Whilst the last one was something like 15 years ago and my memory isn’t as good as it used to be, I’m fairly confident this is not the case. 

Cash is paid to the lawyer or conveyancer’s client account after exchange of contracts, and transferred from there to the seller on completion date. Has always been the case in England. 

21 minutes ago, Mihangel said:

I don't entirely disagree but it's obvious preparation is ongoing, contracts are being done etc so we're not in complete panic, yet.

KC said he already signed - “I was the last to sign.” So if he signed, he must have already been satisfied that the stadium sale  was done - since that was his own condition. We’re back at the “show me the money” point. He must be borrowing against something. I wonder what? 

9 minutes ago, Mihangel said:

You know when you're buying a house, do you tend to send the money across some time before a deal is done, just in case?

Yep. Always goes to the lawyers usually weeks ahead of completion. 

I’m not really buying the bank holidays money transfer thing. Cash should have been already sitting in his Uk attorney’s account, the final transaction is done by lawyers from their client account. I think therefore it’s an issue with whoever’s purchasing the stadium. But strange that he initially blamed the us bank holiday when that should have been irrelevant at this point… something is not quite adding up. 

7 minutes ago, Woodypecker said:

As long as the net result is that CK's takeover goes through by hook or by crook  ?

Not by crook hopefully. I mean, we tried that before in the 80’s… 

2 hours ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

We don't know the outstanding term of the existing lease,  to satisfy the EFL the (CK) club my need to enter into a fresh 10 year + lease, I think a minimum of 10 years was specified by the EFL!

I read the rumour in here too, but could find nothing in the EFL regulations to support it.

Anyway, somebody needs to get their ship together and sign a sale agreement so CK can ratify the club purchase and we can start offering player contracts! 

15 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

I don’t think so. He needs to sign a lease. And the terms to be agreed with the tenant will also be key to the purchase. The two are intrinsically linked. 

There’s already a signed and registered lease, nobody needs to sign another one unless they want to extend or replace it. The existing lease doesn’t just stop when the stadium is sold, the stadium is sold with the lease attached.. unless the parties to the lease agree on something different. 

26 minutes ago, nogbad van 50 said:

I know! Latin was taught at my school and the reward for any spelling mistake was to write the word out 100 times,this was a word that I never misspelled again!? 

*misspelt (unless you’re American?) just sayin’ ?

2 minutes ago, Boycie said:

The DET reporter was talking to the wrong family.

The bozo…

He's rubbish.... nobody in their right mind would sign him......... one footed? zero footed I'd say. He has no feet. And he's slow. And regularly misses training due to his Big Mac addiction. Oh, and his real age is 42. Nothing to see here. Move along.

3 hours ago, Foreveram said:

Manchester City council own the Etihad stadium.

Entirely different scenario, and was paid for by Sport England for the commonwealth games -  who. then gave it to the council...

1 hour ago, LazloW said:

Think the Council are getting a bit of unfair criticism here. They’re  under no obligation to try and buy the stadium and, as many have said, they’re bound to have a lot more hoops to jump through than a ‘normal’ business, both in terms of securing funding (which they may have already done according to ITKers) and actually spending the money.

They certainly won’t be as quick as a private buyer, not least because of all the legal and scrutiny processes they’ll need to go through (which in most cases people would be happy with as nobody likes Councils spending ‘their’ money without scrutiny). The business case might be holding them up too, because you’d have thought of it were that good then you wouldn’t need the Council to get involved (maybe it’s just too much of a stinker of a deal for anybody to do it, which makes it even less likely the Council would approve a bid… got to get good value for public money by law (I think)).

I’d also have thought that if there are avenues being explored for a private purchase, the Council won’t want to commit to anything anyway. Got to be preferable for it not to involve public money? 

 

I speak from personal experience when I say, there is no way on God's green earth that a council would ever (a) be able to do it (b) have the cash or (c) do anything remotely like this in anything less than 6 months. It was impossible from the word "go" and they know it.

But politically, they would have been slated if they didn't appear to be "looking into it". The best they could ever do is try to persuade someone else. 

5 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

If this is all true and the debt MSD debt is owed by DCFC but secured against a stadium not owned by DCFC, then surely it is not a football debt so DCFC can offer the same figure to MSD offered to the other creditors as part of the agreement to exit administration? This adds 6-8 million over three years to the purchase price. Might be a dealbreaker for Kirchner depending on whether or not he has any money. 

But if MSD doesn't accept, then do they simply inherit the ground from Mel? That seems to follow from the above. Then we can lease the ground from MSD and continue to play there. But this is dangerous if they screw us over in the future, even if it might sound an attractive proposition for now. But we need a way of still having a club and, while we'd like to know the long-term future was also secure, any future is better than no future.

Hi Carl, you are correct - it's not a football debt. But it is different because they are a secured creditor. with a fixed charge over the stadium (i.e.  if DCFC defaults, then they own the. stadium) exactly as you say.

MSD have no need to negotiate, or to lease the stadium, they'd simply sell it - either to developers or to whoever wants to buy it. Not their problem.

So the negotiation has to be with Mel to see how much more £££ he is willing to lose.  He holds all the cards right now because he doesn't need to do anything. 

I'm still thinking that Mike Ashley will do a deal with Mel. It's quite likely in my opinion that he has already.  He ain't stupid. 

1 minute ago, IslandExile said:

When does Kirchner leave?

I mean the country.

But yeah, the process also.

At a guess, I'd say tomorrow. And, tomorrow. 

4 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

It’s not about the stadium it’s about money. CK’s offer leaves us with another points deduction unless MM or the Council (or both) tip in 20odd million. 

Exactly this! 

2 minutes ago, StrawHillRam said:

No thanks

I don't see any other possibilities mate. I don't know, given the circumstances, how KC ever got to preferred bidder given that he appears to have no plan to deal with the MSD debt. Other than "I'll someone to ask MM to pay it..." There's no way the council would ever buy the stadium with a £23m charge on it. So I'm guessing they asked MM for the same thing - PAY MSD MEL!! 

Here are some facts which might explain the impasse:

1. The MSD debt is said to be around £23m. 
2. The debt is OWED by DCFC (not by Mel Morris) but is secured against the Stadium.
3. If MSD calls in the debt, then DCFC has to pay it, otherwise MSD will take the deeds to the stadium and will presumably sell to the highest bidder.
4. DCFC has no means to pay the MSD debt.
5. DCFC or KC have no means to buy the stadium

This means that whoever OWNS the stadium, ultimately is responsible for the MSD Debt.

I suspect MM wants to sell the ground, along with the MSD charge against it, for, say £20-23m.

This again means that the MSD debt doesn't get paid, and whoever then owns the stadium, is responsible for any default in debt repayments.

So I think what KC is saying is, MEL: Sell the stadium AND use the money to repay the debt to MSD.

And MEL is saying "Nope. The £20m debt is DCFC's debt. I've already lost £200m. So.... deal with it. That's what the administrators were called in for!!!

All in all, there are only 2 possible outcomes:

Mel caves and GIVES us back the stadium, or somebody with loads of cash buys the stadium....and the club....

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you...... MIKE ASHLEY!

3 hours ago, Monty said:

Haha suggest ‘we may be back at some indeterminate point subject to significant variables over which we have no control or influence’ good luck fitting that to a chant ?

We'll be back imminently...

Formation and tactics just wrong today. Rooney should have changed it when he saw how exposed we are in left back position. Leaving 2 up front? Not from kick off. Crazy. Doesn’t help that Thompson is having a total mare..can’t leave him on surely…?

27 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

The sackings except Pearson, who shouldn't have been appointed were crazy. But he appointed them to carry on The Derby Way!

Maybe a bit with the early (over)spending. But after all the shenanigans and costs (he knew what our finances were like!) he does it again with Lampard! FFS he learnt nothing, nothing at all.

So no, he's to blame. The EFL may have made it difficult for him to fudge things, but in the end he overspent.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I’m really curious to know by how much you think he overspent? £60m? £30m? In other words would have been ok if he had stayed just inside the P&S threshold? Or way under..? 

I accept that I may be alone with this view… so don’t all pile on, I am fully aware that in the end it was a disaster, but….

I read and 100% agree with everything that Mel says in his lengthy letter. 
 

He slams the EFL for their almost childlike behaviour from the very beginning; making up rules to suit themselves; systematically   removing all of the (fair and reasonable) options Mel had, creating this whole ******** scenario to suit their board member. 
 

let’s not forget too much that the EFL are way more to blame for this mess than Mel - he was a smart guy, did some really smart things but at the end of the day, the EFL sucked away his will. They don’t like smart people with their smart ideas.

EFL are self righteous dinosaurs, and they will become extinct when the dust settles. They can’t survive the shambles they have created, and I for one will be celebrating when they are removed (even if we are in the Midlands North division).

Don’t shoot me. But most of us agreed with every move Mel made at the time.. maybe a few too many sackings but hey… at least he tried.. ?

5 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Mate as far as I know the Arbitration offered by the EFL is their own arbitration procedure.

Everything is pointing to a takeover being of paramount importance now .

If Ashley wants the club he needs to be coming forward now .

Its rumored he was in Derby yesterday but who knows 

For me, the admins need a court judgement and ASAP! as I’ve been saying for ages, I don’t know why they think that trying to convince the EFL is even a remote starter.. complete waste of time, same for arbitration, also a complete waste of time. Get on with it admins!!!

9 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Even if liquidated, we will just start again.

This! Even if liquidated, we’d have the highest attendance in the Derby South division (or where ever). 30,000 against Mickleover Sports - now that would be a spectacle!!