Hanny

35 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Completely disagree. Do you know how the BBC operates? It isnt mostly funded from the licence fee - it is entirely funded by the lucence fee. It isn't a commercial station. These local radio stations will be funded by the BBC regardless of anything Ed Dawes says. They aren't competing with each other for funding...

He may have reported it to stroke his own ego, but again that has nothing to do with the funding of the station.

I am not an expert on how funds are dispersed in this case. That is true.
 

But it doesn’t make sense. Are you saying the BBC will fund any old content driven entity (radio Derby in this case) regardless of the value it brings or the viewership it builds?  
 

Perhaps that is the case. It would just be a very odd and poorly run agreement if so. 

However, my point still stands. Ed Dawes is a public figure. The more people that listen to him, the more people that follow him, the better it is for Ed Dawes.  So, yeah, it is in his interest to be provocative. I didn’t say he has to be a shock jock or flat out lie.

But taking a standard event(large international money transfer provenance check) and applying an unsubstantiated comment to it…is provocative. Look at all the people quoting Ed Dawes. And as such has served its purpose. Not to inform, but to get people talking about it, and the person who made the comment: Ed Dawes; Radio Derby. 

6 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Radio Derby derives its funding from the licence fee. They have no need for clickbait, etc as their funding is not derived from advertisements or number of listeners.

Ed may very well have reported something incorrectly, but it wont have been with the intention of sowing panic. He gains nothing from that

Eh. Maybe we disagree a wee bit here. Perhaps the funding is mostly derived from licensing…but you get licensing /funding from having a popular program.
 

 A public figure saying something deliberately provocative- has immense value for the individual and the employer…especially if that employer is a radio station. 
 

Ed has every reason to be a Provacetuer, and drive people to click his profiles, which are also linked to Radio Derby 

31 minutes ago, Phuket Ram said:

Except, like most people with no access to any genuine information,, you're just guessing.

Like it or not, if Ashley ends up as our new owner - he most definitely WILL be our saviour. There can be absolutely no question of that, the alternative being liquidation.  

 

Sure. I am not party to this exact deal. So, I am making some logical assumptions. But from what has been presented; panicking doesn’t make sense. 
 

The only way for the UK to run a provenance check on money, is IF the money is already in the system. So that logically means- the mo why for the takeover has been sent by CK. And nobody sends the funds unless they intend to complete any deal. 
 

I also dont care if Ashley or CK was the owner. My point was, Ashley had every chance to make an offer for the club. And he didn’t. Any deal, especially one as large as this one will give options to anyone that legitimately puts money forward. The only person to do that was CK. 
 

If Ashley wanted to, he could ring up Q right now and say- I’ve got 50 mill sat in an escrow account. Let me know how we need it divided. But he hasn’t. And while being a PB for CK does allow for a wee bit of exclusivity…the nature of this deal (either it gets done or liquidation…means Q has the right to entertain any offer at any time. As long as it’s legitimate. 
 

Which means, the only legitimate offer that has been made, is CKs offer. Doesn’t mean it will all go through (because deals fall apart all the time). But what I’m saying is,  everything  that has been reported, has not pointed to anything other then the deal continuing to move forward to resolution. ?‍♂️

3 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

People are panicking because radio derby ran with "takeover on the verge of collapse" this morning and nothing since then has made it seem like it isn't.

I know Radio Derby said that…but why do people care? 
 

So a radio station, that partly derives its funding from creating panic, which drives listenership/viewership. Has taken a standard practice event (money provenance check) and added a statement of ‘but what if this means the money is no good’ to drive viewership. And people are panicking from that?  
 

Huh. Seems drastic to me. But ?‍♂️

The money is in the UK system and is being checked for provenance. Ok. 
 

Why are people panicking? 
 

It is another hurdle in the mass of hurdles needed clearing in this entire process.  
 

Also- Ashley is not some savior that anyone is keeping from saving Derby. He had every opportunity over the last few months to table a bid and position himself as the lead option…and he never did. 
 

Unless CK’s money turns out to be laundered or have sus provenance…it will clear and be deposited in the creditors accounts/team accounts/etc. And just like any deal- when the check clears, the deal is completed. 

I believe a deal will get done. We will all see soon enough. But the comments and worry of CK not sat at some imaginary negotiation table is a bit much. 
 

Anyone in the position of a CK, Ashley, or even Mel- aren’t sat at negotiating tables at this stage of a deal. Their skill set is not needed at this point- just their signature. 

At this point it is down to lawyers, Accountants, etc to wrap up any deal. 
 

I believe a deal will get done, one way or another. But please don’t be concerned if CK isn’t sat in Derby at the moment. He has done his part,  now he waits just like us, so he can sign his name. 

A quick leaf through the pages tells me I should not engage with this…because I’m just seeing folks making wild statements. And bring a bit emotional with the follow ups. So I will regret wading in…especially since I may not respond for a bit- sorry ?
 

However the thing that seems to stand out is an assumption that there are magical better offers out in the wild that are being cruelly held back from some incompetent force. Madness. 
 

The truth of the matter(as I see it) is boring AF. This deal sucks. Mel has complicated the math by how he structured the loans/stadium purchase. 

Any potential buyer looks at this as a crap deal. All parties currently at the table or hovering have the means to complete the deal. But obviously will continue to push for best terms. 
 

We will find out soon enough who wants to give in and pay over what this Club is currently worth.

The only person who has satisfied the process thus far is CK. If anyone else wants to do better- then they need to voice that.
 

If Ashley wants to put a bug in the ear of Q and say he wants to put forth a better deal…he would have done that. Exclusivity does not stop him from making his intentions clear.

In short: complex business deals that involve history, sentiment, and future value are generally long drawn out and boring minutiae. There are no conspiracies, there are no magical deals.

At some point some one caves on a line item. Then the deal is made. We are very close to that point.  

20 minutes ago, Kernow said:

If the alternative is liquidation, or playing in Stoke or Leicester, then I really would like to see him take over.

From what I saw, Mel will only write off his directors loans (125Million+£), IF he gets his asking price for the ground. If not, he will push his claims against the club to get a percentage back from those funds. Means he is stopping any ground share option

Of course this is not confirmed- just folks talking online ?‍♂️

51 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

It's not a case of deliberately/consciously "accepting" £zero.  It's holding out for a supposed minimum amount (percentage), that may never come. 

It's simple haggling... minimum acceptance v maximum offer. 

If those figures never merge, then all of a sudden, the creditor is left with nothing (or effectively nothing) and it's only at that point do they wish they'd lowered their demands... by which time, all the bidders have walked away, and DCFC have been fed into the blender.

I didn't mean to imply the Creditors have simply said, 'whatever amount you give us is fine', I hope my comments haven't come across that way.

I understand there will be negotiating/haggling going on between the creditors and admins. My point is the creditors are in a very weak position to negotiate.

This isn't like a person trying to sell their well kept home for (400,000) pounds, with all bills paid up and they get to wait on the highest/best bidder or they simply won't sell.

This is the bank standing by that same home saying someone needs to buy this home for much more then it is worth (2,000,000 pounds)- also this home  has massive damage, infestations, and the new buyer must pay all back bills or we are going to scrape it from its plot of land

A labored metaphor and not quite accurate...apologies. But, my point stands. Creditors are in a weak position to negotiate anything in this case. They can ask for what they would like, but ultimately have to accept whatever is paid them.

52 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

The creditors (most of them) don't have any attachment to the club,emotional or otherwise, so why would they accept a derisory offer when we still have players earning in excess of £20K per week,so would see an offer of 25% or less as an insult,they won't be bothered whether the club survives or not. 

You are 100% correct. The creditors don't care about the club...they care about money. That's why I don't understand the thinking that a money motivated entity will refuse money based on some principle that it's not enough. 

This isn't a situation of being insulted, and drawing a line in the sand. The creditors want to get paid. The only way they get paid, is if Derby find a new owner. They get nothing if Derby get liquidated. 

It would be bad business by the creditors if they were to feel insulted, and draw an imaginary line in the sand while dealing with a club on the brink of liquidation. 

21 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

That will be up to the bidders to meet what the creditors demand,if they aren't prepared to do that then yes.

Not sure I understand this thinking.

You seem to be implying a financial entity is demanding a 'floor' price from a club in administration of monies owed. And will scoff at anything less than this...drawing a line in the sand of what is acceptable to them.

But then you imply they will also be fine with getting nothing (on pure principle) of a bidder not reaching the initial 'floor' price set out? 

That doesn't make much financial sense for the creditors. ?‍♂️

18 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

There is no way HMRC will accept 20%. The unsecured creditors are going to end up with next to nothing anyway.

So you are saying HMRC will not accept 20% on principle. But they will accept 0% if the team gets liquidated? I’ve seen others say similar…I don’t get that thinking. 
 

Mels got the stadium. If Derby get liquidated…there’s nothing to sell to make close to the 20% you say they would refuse. ?‍♂️

Derby just don't seem to have a player wanting to take a shot. Awful lot of tippy-tappy around the box. Would like to see some of the lads just put a boot through a few and see what happens.?‍♂️

47 minutes ago, Rambalin said:

Strange because Ed Dawes just said he had spoken to them and they haven't. 

I thought the Appleby team are thought to be the safety net? As in, if all falls through, they will buy the club to keep it from liquidation...but it won't be the best bid. Just a bid to keep the club...a club.

I'm sure that's all speculation, but my mind has that as the position Appleby is in. ?‍♂️

34 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Mike's spent his money ?

 

 

Eh. Business man does business deal. I don’t sense this should be a worry. ?‍♂️

3 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Agree. Of course there was money involved. But MM would not want this disclosed 

I mean. Something was exchanged for certain. But since this was a standoff between two multimillionaires with paper thin egos. The compensation could have been something as ridiculous as a Pokémon card Morris outbid Gibson for ten years ago. 
 

Gibson had Derby over a barrel given the current (outdated according to English law)EFL rules. And I will never pat Morris on the back, but he did (finally) step in and resolve the biggest hurdle. So ?‍♂️

41 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I don’t think this is true. We will not see a takeover in February. They have to deal with all of the creditors not just Boro and Wycombe and this will not get done now much before end of the season.

However naming a Preferred Bidder may be close .  But we have said that before.

 Your take is quite possible, yes. As stated my comments are more what I see as possible given the details we all currently have. 
 

Can a takeover happen in February, of course. That’s not too short of a timeline if all parties have the plan sorted. Time from a PB being announced to official paperwork being completed can be quite swift. 
 

Most deals/contracts/sales etc are 95% complete before announcements etc. 

Again, the B/W claims are the only line item making this a complicated deal. Buying companies with debt is not difficult to complete.

Dealing with Creditors is baked in to any offer the admins are accepting. It’s not a situation of doing one thing at a time: buying the club- then having a discussion with each creditor and come to a deal- then talk with B/W to come to a deal- then the club comes out of admin. All of the above is happening at the same time. Once a new owner officially signs and admins accept all of the above will have a plan to be completed. Then it’s just a matter of seeing that plan through. 

?‍♂️Again, the above are just my thoughts based on details available coupled with my understanding of contract law/deal making.
 

Granted I’ve never negotiated a deal for a massive football club…but the basic tenants still apply…just many more moving parts in this type of deal. 
 

My read (hope) on latest: 

Funding for the next month is to secure time to finalize the takeover, which is underway (officially).
 

Assumptions I’m making for the above to be true: 

1. Admins have the official offer(s) in hand, now the due diligence part of any deal can proceed. Some of this can be done pre-offer…but offer needs to be in-hand to finalize any due diligence(standard contracts practice). The Admins can’t really make a move or statement with out an official (in hand offer), Binnies move made others officially bid for club, as opposed to negotiation. 
 

2. If number one is true, then Derby shouldn’t see any more player sales (at least not forced sales). 
 

3. if One and Two are true; Derby will likely see a takeover in February. Unfortunate to have passed the transfer window. But, knowing that a takeover is officially underway now…the focus can turn back to the daunting task of staying up. Knowing the club is going to continue on and players/coaches not having to worry about jumping ship before the club folds. 
 

as always, this is my speculation on this seemingly small(yet potentially massive) development. 

12 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I know but when the tweets state erroneous facts it just makes me wonder. 

How will Q be able to deal with B&Ws claims? 

If I recall. Wasn’t one of the possibilities for a prospective buyer to accept there are active claims against the club, and deal with them later? Very risky for any buyer.
 

Wasn't some form of that in one of the EFLs latest statements? 
 

If so, this offer sounds like it’s taking that path. 

6 minutes ago, Maharan said:

Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but to me it reads like coming out of admin might have to be via a restructuring rather than a CVA. That might incur another points deduction 

Could be. ?‍♂️ I (we all), hope for clarity tout de suite!

8 minutes ago, Maharan said:

One interesting point from the administration update which seems to have been overtaken by the shitstorm of updates;

‘The uncertainty around the possibility of further sanctions from the EFL in the event the chosen bid does not deliver the financial compensation to pass the EFL rules around payment to both football creditors and other creditors.’ 
 

I wonder if that’s a general statement because none of the bids meet the minimum thresholds to comply with EFL rules?

Interesting take.

I suppose I read that statement as reference to the two claims. As EFL is (rightly) stating any one can bid/buy Derby right now. Of course that means accepting the two claims (which are not clear what they are). That would be bad business to buy without clarity. Which is Where I believe the stalemate stems from. It's like walking up to a house for sale, and having the sellers say: I'm not stopping you from buying our house...but you can't go inside and look at it, you cant inspect it/etc. Just finish the paperwork/pay us, and we will hand you the keys...nobody is buying that house. ?‍♂️

21 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

What is NOT encouraging is that the EFl are rushing through mediation and not arbitration. Better than nothing I suppose

My sense is they are trying to rush it now, with the realization Derby are going to come up with funds to last the season (per admins recent post). Once Derby secure funding for the season, EFL/Boro/Wycombe will lose strength in any negotiation going forward, since the specter of liquidation in a couple of weeks will vanish. Then since the eye of the public/political/footballing world has now been turned towards them. They will be in the position of having to explain their positions in detail, as opposed to platitudes and vague points that have been presented from them thus far. 

Hopefully I'm sensing right here ?‍♂️

11 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

13 minutes ago, StrawHillRam said:

The real bad guy is Gibson, the efl are just inept  puppets

Don't believe that, I don't believe it. They are self-serving malevolent bankers!

Agree. They are self serving. And this public sentiment gives the self serving EFL a possible out. Maybe?‍♂️

9 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Surely if the EFL said they're not football creditors then even if Gibson came after them he wouldn't win?

This is my thinking. Up to this point, EFL seem to have wanted the claims (especially them pushing the claim off of them towards Derby) quiet. But with the new public scrutiny, the EFL might find as a blessing.
 

If they throw out these claims as spurious, there will be enough public sentiment (and possibly letter of the law) to protect themselves from any further spurious claims by Boro and Wyc.  ?‍♂️

30 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Hanny

Briefly, so we can enjoy the glow of today’s victory. 
I’ve spent a lifetime working on restructurings and a few years recently teaching about them at a top institution. That’s not to say everything I post on here will be right.
But for what it’s worth, my take is that this will all get sorted, as much as anything  because for us to be liquidated or to lose the share is an irrational result. And my (more amateur) footballing view is that IF Rooney can keep what is left of his squad together, there is a decent chance we will stay up. 
I really do apologise if I have pi$$ed you off and even more if I have increased the anxiety all of this throws up. In my case that anxiety (and anger) has resulted in me posting more than I should have done.

This is a proper apology, not like Boris’
 

Yes! Let’s indeed enjoy this victory! And hopefully more to come!
 

I’d  like to be clear. I am not pissed off in any way. I legit assumed you were expert level trolling. You seem to be claiming knowledge of restructuring contracts or legal documents. I can’t dispute you have that knowledge. 
 

I just struggle with your approach to leave out important details when making your claims (from a position of knowledge). Which is a pretty big deal. Maybe it’s just this medium (can’t be too detailed in a forum response).
 

I have experience in negotiating corporate software contracts. But have never once sat at a football club table in a deal. So, my comments are to be taken with a grain of salt..which I feel I’ve conveyed..and you haven’t. 

Hope you have a grand evening. 

coyr