atherstoneram

3 minutes ago, Ram1988 said:

I am starting to increasingly worry it's not going to happen. It doesn't take a week to transfer money regarding of bank holidays.

Just now, Curtains said:

He didn’t actually say that to be fair .

It was more a hope as it is for all of us 

1 minute ago, Will Hughes Hair said:

Are you by any chance related to Captain Oates?

Wasn't he a Quaker.

1 minute ago, B4ev6is said:

I dont think quite true is it

He paid the wages and clearly paying off the debts.

Are you sure it was CK who paid the wages?

6 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Given that they've just changed their stadium name to the Poundland Stadium, the deal was probably done in cash. 

At least they can start sorting contracts out and getting new players in with their new investment.

Walsall haven't seemed to have a problem with an American completing the takeover in the last couple of days. Guess he hasn't had the same bank holidays.?

2 hours ago, BucksRam said:

There you go. 

And then we find out MA has bought the ground to spite CK as he wouldn't enter into a joint buyout.

Do we know for certain who has bought the ground from MM?

1 hour ago, jimtastic56 said:

All of us who can, will get season tickets as soon as they come out. Away tickets hardly bring any cash to the club, but a new shirt will. At around £50 each + a name will bring quick cash to DCFC. Let’s get them as soon as they are on the shelves.

As Fanatic now run and staff the club shop,the club only receive a small percentage of the merchandise sold.

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Like I said, that's one of two ways they could restrict wages being offered, and the limit would be different in l1 than it would when we return to the Championship. The other would not stop us offering him £50k a week if the wage bill for the rest of the squad was small enough. 

In the business plan the EFL can force a ceiling on the amount we can offer in a new contract. The business plan would override the regulations appertaining to L1 clubs, there is no way the EFL will allow us to offer a contract of £50K per week whilst we are under the business plan as they will want to make sure we comply with the plan by not overspending.

3 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

They definitely were speculating as there has been no suggestion of that being the case. In fact, all evidence from Kirchner suggests the opposite. Taking money away from the club for that purpose would impact our chances of returning to the Championship. It's impossible to push for promotion, pay creditors, fund the academy, pay wages and maintain the stadium and training group whilst breaking even.
Therefore, to cover all of these costs Kirchner will be injecting money into the club or loaning the club money. 

I'll be extremely surprised if our wage bill isn't top 6 next season, regardless of what else our revenue goes towards.
Even if £6m of revenue went towards creditors (leaving us with about £12m), there'd only be Sheff Weds, Sunderland, Portsmouth and Ipswich who will have similar or greater incomes - and one of those will likely be playing in the Championship next season.

Unless all creditors are paid in full exiting administration the EFL will impose a business plan for the 3 years if we are paying 35% over 3 years. I think that means a wage/transfer fee cap,they are not going to allow a club to sign anybody for whatever salary/transfer costs when creditors have not been paid in full.

8 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

That's not actually correct.

There's no FFP/P&S in League 1. It's SCMP. As a relegated club, we are restricted to spending 75% of our turnover on salaries. However, equity injections count as turnover. If Kirchner actually wanted to and could afford to, the rules would allow him to retain Lawrence. 

Having said that, we know a song about unaffordable wage bills.

We may have dodged the 15 point deduction or so it seems but with CK offering 35% over 3 years that means that we will be under a restrictive business plan imposed by the EFL during that time. We will still be restricted to what salaries or transfer fees we can offer.

Just now, CBRammette said:

Why would he want to be involved in a phoenix club at the bottom of the pyramid? 

To get his hands on the ground.

Why would he want to offer the lowest amount possible to get a 15 point deduction to start in league 1 and pay contracts up if he doesn't want them at the club if he thinks they are on too high a contract.Wait until the club is liquidated and get it for a nominal amount.

2 minutes ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

Anyone who wants MA should be listening to Gary Neville - “Mike Ashley stunk this place out”.

The administrators have a fine line to tread - if they think there’s a real chance it’ll get done with CK then keep going.  Otherwise, move on.  While MA is far from ideal it’s better than no club.  Ultimately, it MM’s mess.  He put us here, he’s stopping us from moving on.

If CK does pull out for whatever reason why would MA buy the club in its current position. Wait until it is liquidated,that way he doesn't have to pay any contracts up (Rooney and all the coaching staff etc.)and the players still in contract get paid by the EFL and are able to join other teams,i think transfer fees are still involved but the money raised remains with the EFL and goes to paying football creditors and the administrators. He then buys the ground from MM,if that is his intention. He then applies to the FA for a phoenix club to be allowed to join the pyramid at whatever level,if that happens there certainly won't be a phoenix club in place to start next season.

42 minutes ago, TomTom92 said:

Unless MA has upped his offer significantly or he has an ace up his sleeve for the stadium I can’t see how him coming back in helps anyone.

I imagine even the administrators are pulling their hair out now. Got a good enough deal to see us on no minus figures for next season but Mel won’t play ball. 

The club goes into liquidation then MA buys the ground from MM to cover his debt owed on the ground he then buys the club for a minimal amount and starts off with a phoenix club. I don't think it's the club he is interested in more the ground.

3 minutes ago, Crewton said:

So, are you passing on their opinions, or telling us what you think CT payers in Derby will think of the idea? Because the former might be relevant but the latter isn't.

Lots of people pay for services they don't use BTW, me included. If I don't like what my local Council is spending my money on, I can vote against them next time out. But from a purely personal perspective, I'd be more amenable to them spending money on an asset that someone else will be required to maintain, and which I know will be bringing in a yield of between 5-7.5% p.a as rent, if it also helps to preserve an income generator for local businesses and protect hundreds of jobs in the process (let alone the other less tangible benefits for thousands of people's mental health and well-being).

Which hundreds of jobs are being protected,purely as a matter of interest.

1 minute ago, GenBr said:

Not sure what your point is here? Thats the same for any business.

The club is a large employer with dozens of smaller businesses relying on it directly and even more relying on the fans it brings in to the area indirectly. They also pay business rates to the council. The club disappearing has a huge financial impact on both the council and the local economy.

By smaller businesses does that mean pubs etc which benefit Once a fortnight,sometimes Twice if we are lucky. I wouldn't imagine many spending a couple of hours walking round the shops.Some on here moan about the price of parking when coming to a match so park where it's free,that's not bringing in revenue for the council. The way some people post is that they spend a significant amount on each visit and keep the city going.

Just now, Ramos said:

Any bidder will want to save any money they can. So it makes sense to buy back the stadium when we are in a much healthier position like in the premier league or a few years at the top end of the champ when we have made good money on a few youngsters. 

So it's up to MM to take the hit not council tax payers bailing him out.

27 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

So would you be against the idea?

Of course i would, what happened to MM's promise that he would sell the club for £1 to the right buyer, Seems to me nobody in MM's eyes is the right buyer. Why should the council buy it if the prospective owners want it included in the deal, doesn't matter by that anology who owns it. it doesn't change anything and the council could finish up with the proverbial white elephant.

53 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

AH, but if you put a roof on it and install clever ways of covering the pitch you could have large concerts there during the football season, making Pride Park worth £80m as a unique venue. I mean, none of that ever happened..........

The council have already got Derby Arena for things like that.

2 hours ago, Curtains said:

Totally agree but the MSD loan against the Stadium appears to be the MM issue regarding this as he would have to take a 20 Million hit allegedly.

I see the Council as being a lat resort option but unfortunately we are getting to that point .

If the PB was given the buy back option at a later date within contracts then I don’t see an issue other than lease charges 

 

Why would they want to buy back later if they are not prepared to pay for it now,it is not down to the council to sort out MM's mess.

2 hours ago, Curtains said:

Yes of course I understand the dilemma for the council regarding Tax payers money and excess regarding insurance costs .

The fire was very unfortunate at the Assembly Rooms but it was getting somewhat dilapidated.

I just think over a period PP and DCFC will be well worth saving as DCFC is definitely a community asset and buying and leasing initially is a very good option 

It might not come to fruition but I sure hope it does .

It is not a community asset in the true meaning, i don't think MM would agree to a giant party being held there for the people of Derby to attend for the Queens upcoming anniversary. It is only a community asset in the sense that if the owner wants to change the use the council have to agree. It doesn't belong to the public, it belongs to a multi millionaire.

3 hours ago, Crewton said:

You're not a Derby City council tax payer, are you? 

What's that got to do with it,i have family who are.

1 minute ago, GenBr said:

In terms of revenue then yes Derby County is one of the biggest companies in Derbyshire. Obviously it comes nowhere near the likes of rolls royce, but there are hundreds of businesses in Derbyshire and Derby County is well up there.

It may well be in terms of revenue but most of that revenue goes into the club not the city.

Just now, Wignall12 said:

But they don't then need to rebuild the assembly rooms for concerts.  

Correct,so they don't need to buy PP for concerts and the like