DCFC27

7 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

FFS. How many times? It’s not a deadline, it’s an expectation.

The PB does run out today. Dress that up however you wish. 

Just now, ariotofmyown said:

Do we know who is responsible for bringing in Festy/Plange/Ebiowei last year? I hope it wasn't Rooney and whoever it was is still here. Was last season our best ever for recruitment? Spent nothing and brought it some great kids and quality experienced pros.

Festy had been here since he was 16 I thought. 

26 minutes ago, Addingham Ram said:

I still think Fozzy could do a job for us.

Runs through walls for DCFC.

Any rumours on what his plans are?

He wants to stay at Derby, he said that in his interview at the end of last season. I get the feeling that he’s more likely to get a contract now. 

I know Rooney has left, but I can’t imagine he’s told anyone had lined up not to bother turning up. In fact I’d imagine he’s encouraged anyone whose approached him  since he quit to go in tomorrow to support LR. 
 

Warnock Cook or Rosinier for me. 
If we could prize Warnock out of retirement we’d be a real real shoe in for promotion to the championship.

2 hours ago, DanS1992 said:

I dunno. They have Olise, Eze and Zaha vying for that position.

Just shows if you’re good enough they will play you 

1 hour ago, DanS1992 said:

Just goes to show how badly advised young footballers are nowadays. Stay at Derby, develop playing regular  first team football, or go to Palace, who have a multitude of players ahead of him and get no where near the team. All that said I don't blame him for going considering the state that our dear club is currently in. Just a shame, that he doesn't show a little bit of that same loyalty that we showed him when Rooney gave him his first taste of senior football. The move further up the ladder would have happened down the line. Shame that he, or his agent seem so short sighted.

He has a very good opportunity to play at Palace. They blood young players, if he’s good enough he’ll get the opportunity. Has he gone to United I’d have agreed with you. But I actually think this is a smart choice for him. 

2 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

I think he's a late cummer 

subtle

19 hours ago, atherstoneram said:

We were only allowed to fund month to month last season because we went into administration after the season had started,we won't be allowed that luxury this season.

Not true. 

20 hours ago, GenBr said:

No, but that is irrelevant. Administration isn't the only reason they need to refuse the transfer of the golden share or to expel us from the league.

Totally untrue. They have rules about, to be followed, in admin. Simply being in admin is not a justification. 

21 hours ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

If funding isn't secured they can. They won't risk fixtures being incomplete etc. 

I think you're missing the point.

8 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

If funding isn't secured they can. They won't risk fixtures being incomplete etc. 

See option 1 or 2 

1 minute ago, GenBr said:

Yes it is. If they decide to withdraw the golden share then their is no more Derby County.

I don't think they would ever do that as they dont want any blame on themselves, but they can if they want to.

Have we broken any of the term of administration? 

1 hour ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

To remove membership yes it is 

Only if we are breaking a rule in Admin. We are not. Currently we have paid our way, haven't reduced salaries of players or missed payments without an agreement with the creditors. We are allowed to be in Admin until March 23. 

Our options going into the season (in  admin) 

1) we keep funding the club month by month, keep contracted players and make the rest of the team up of youth players. 

2) Provide proof the club can continue to trade for the full season on a break even budget, this will allow us to sign players externally, for example bringing in the likes of Morrison/Fozzy/Davies again as long as they are happy with £4k a week again. 

At some point next season you would hope the takeover has gone through. 

They have no grounds to remove membership. 

13 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

The crunch will come next week, the EFL will seek reassurance from the administrators that they have got a short term loan or offers for players to cover this months wages, if they can't raise a short term loan then i can see the EFL taking further action (not the 3 point deduction) and bring things to an end. We can't keep trading whilst insolvent.

It is not in anyones interest to let the debt keep rising.

Not EFLs choice. 

1 minute ago, CornwallRam said:

So, according to the companies house document- thanks @G STAR RAM, Gellaw  owes £123.4m to Mel who is listed as an unsecured creditor. 

So the questions are:

Does Gellaw count as part of the club - it's part of the cross-security arrangement for the MSD loans.

If so, doesn’t that give Mel a veto over any deal?

 

 

Mel said this when he put us in Admin, he failed to say at the time he hasn’t paid a penny yet for the £80m purchase of the stadium. 

1 hour ago, Ambitious said:

Based on that, I would advise that we will be taking another point deduction next season. We shall wait and see, but definitely seems like it's going in that direction. 

Not necessarily, CK was happy to pay more over a longer period. The new bidders may be happier paying more quickly but less money. 

I know Q had to ease up on their £5m non refundable deposit, however surely we’ll owed a substantial amount of money from CK for non completion. If there was nothing in the contracts about this then Q really are worse than I thought already. 

On the plus side. We have a good midfield. 

Very ITK on this one, CK has withdrawn it cash. It’s was on its way across the Atlantic however some storms had slowed its progress. It had been hoped that it would appear today at 1pm. However the he tried telling them he had nothing to declare at the port and now the money has been confiscated. Back to plan A. Source Derek Trotter, he’s recently resurrected his career in laundering Diamonds. 

ITK 

The admin, Kirchner, Morris have collectively agreed the deal can not be completed until this forum hits 1884. 

1 minute ago, Big Trav said:

To summarise what’s happening is, MA putting the EFL between a rock and a hard place. EFL have to either decide to liquidate derby or force the admins to take MA’s deal. If Derby liquidate the EFL will lose a good chunk of money and will almost certainly be some form of external investigation. The admins will pretty much have to accept MA’s offer as it’s the only one on the table. If the admins don’t accept it then it could be argued they are t getting the best deal for creditors. It’s a big game of chess rn 

EFL can’t liquidate Derby County. They are not a creditor. 

6 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

There is, if you have any experience of banking transactions and or M&A you would know that you would need to show where the money has come from. If you look at Chelsea, Newcastle takeovers they were more or less seamless because they would have gone to their bank and said, this is what we want to do, this where the money is from and this is where the money is going, and shown evidence. TheY would have done this in advance, it dosnt appear CKs advisors have done this.

Each financial institution (banks etc) will have people that ensure that transactions are not laundering money. This will be done on a risk basis such as country, industry, amount, type of transactions (crypto etc), new account/large single transaction etc. the transactions will be put through the software and anything that matches the above will be flagged. So if you spend £30 in the COOP no action, £21m in a new account going to another country (UK will not be high risk by the way)= red flag and further questions. 
 

what you do is speak to the bank in advance and go through it and ensure they are comfortable with the transaction and then they push the transaction through 

You can’t speak to them in advance. The reason for this is this could be seen as assisting. Can you imagine if you went to the bank and asked what information do you need to show this isn’t money laundering and then they told you…

It’s the solicitors job to gather the appropriate evidence it’s not money laundering. If they’ve done there job correctly they’ll have years worth of history as to the origin of funds and can send that on request. 
 

If we take Kirchner at his word. There isn’t much anyone could do about AML checks happening. The “Financial Police” don’t publish a book of transactions they will check nor are they very open to deal with. However, his attorney’s could have been better prepared for this and should have had evidence of where every penny is coming from. If they had this they could have forwarded on at the first opportunity. If they haven’t then this is a major blunder. 
 

Personally it’s difficult to trust this narrative after previous endeavours. 

BBC derby is Mike Ashley. They’re using BBC Derby to put pressure on the deal so they can get back around the table. Nixon is Q.