atherstoneram

1 hour ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Really?

He was driving towards the stadium, red Range Rover at about half 2.

Most probably has nothing to do with the club however.

So long as he wasn't singing "Burn Derby Burn".

13 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Because again we're in so much do-do that we've had to rely on 'local people' to buy us for more than we're worth. I've no dount MA wanted to buy us but and wanted a long term investment, hence 10 year rent free, but not at 'any price' - no-one else bar Clowes wanted us at 'any price either'!

Totally agree, just shows how much debt we are in

7 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Then you will be able to show it in the rule book for all to see - if you can’t - well you know ! 

Whatever.

8 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

I do find restrictions to investment crazy after a club has gone into administration, it’s another backwards EFL rule. 

On one hand you’re begging for someone to bail out a club from going out of existence then on the other you’re telling that saviour: ‘oh, but you have to work under all these new conditions’ due to sins of the previous owner. 

There has to be a better way, especially when the actual bloke who caused this entire mess gets away almost no liability.

I know it’s an oversimplification, but an escrow account where new owners could put money in to cover investments makes sense. Equally, I’d love owners to be personally responsible for their actions. No reason to why football clubs are treated like any other limited company. Nothing is set in stone and there should be protections in place for fans of these huge community assets. Investment should be welcomed. When money is spent everyone benefits, but far more is focused on the buying club than the selling club. An active market actually benefits smaller clubs who can hold out for more money for their top players, but in a slower market, it only helps the rich get richer.

It’s another frustration I have with the EFL and their shortsightedness. 

Because the EFL don't want another "Leicester" to happen.

47 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I think you underestimate the munificence of St David. I think he was determined to save us. Once he had bought the stadium, he knew that was in his power because he knew he himself was willing to make a bid for the club that cleared the points deduction hurdle. 
 

He was (is) our underwriter. 
 

If it proved that Ashley was willing to pay more than DC for the club, fine. I think DC would have let him have it and would have negotiated a long term lease. (That constitutes ownership of the stadium for all intents and purposes) 

Don’t think it will happen, but it’s still not impossible that Ashley will swoop 

Ashley has spouted a lot via his media friends but never once put his money were his mouth is.

1 hour ago, Ambitious said:

People who know him personally have mentioned that he has always said he had no interest in becoming owner, which makes sense, but he had the means and could see the club potentially going into a season without a fighting chance. I think he will get someone in to run the club, he’s fully engaged with his day job, he just hasn’t got the time or the know-how.

He certainly won't be doing a MM of trying to run the club without any knowledge

Just now, Sparkle said:

Yet it isn’t 

It's there if you look for it.

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Wigan spent about £700k on a single player when they have a usual L1 revenue of £7m. Why couldn't they pay that money to creditors instead?

The EFL approved Wigan spending at least 10% of their revenue on one player so these 'clear exiting administration rules' you speak of will clearly let us spend an equivalent sum based on our revenue.

We won't know what the business plan will be that will have been discussed and agreed by the parties concerned and will be restrictive as opposed to what we could spend as per ratio of income. When you have debts of £30+ million there is no way the EFL will let a club go spending "x" millions of one player. The debts at Wigan were nowhere near as much as ours if i remember.

4 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

Not sure how that works though....if he's contracted to x amount of pounds a week then that's a contractual obligation which his employer has to uphold?

Unless you are legally entitled to vary a persons contract when their employer is in administration?

More than likely a mutual decision which benefits both parties.

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Explain why Wigan were allowed to spend fees on players immediately after exiting administration then.

I am not saying we won't be allowed to spend fees on players, just restricted as to what we can offer.

7 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The average L1 club has revenue of £6m. Given SCMP rules, that means the average L1 club has a player wage bill of less than £4m.

Derby will have an estimated revenue of £15-18m next season. Even if the EFL imposed an astoundingly tough punishment of 25% of revenue of wages (a third of what a normal club relegated from the Championship can spend) then we'd still be on par with the average L1 club.

Rules have to be the same for everyone. Wigan certainly didn't have anything close to a 25% limit when relegated whilst in administration. That would be a wage bill of about £1.75m. They were also allowed to spend significant sums on players the transfer window immediately following them exiting administration. It would be equivalent to us spending £2m on one player, then still spending more on other players.

The EFL rules for exiting administration are clear, no club shall be deemed to gain an advantage on exiting administration. We have a big fanbase so will have a bigger estimated revenue which means we can afford to offer more under normal circumstances.

The view will be that if we go offering £2m on one player then that money could have been used so creditors could have been paid more, it is a penalty to ensure we don't have an unfair advantage and that while the deal to pay creditors is in place then a restrictive business plan will remain in place but not as restrictive as one with a 15 point deduction thrown into the mix. The EFL won't allow us to pay only 25% then having an open chequebook to sign players.

8 hours ago, Sparkle said:

That’s pretty much the accepted trend - whilst none of it is written down in EFL rules/guidelines that are available for all to see. 

Clearly set out in the EFL rules for clubs exiting administration.

3 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

But we’re never going to pay the creditors in full. So, are the extra restrictions only for a set period of time (sorry, I’m sure the answer is somewhere easy to find myself but I’m too lazy/cold here on holiday ?).

Whilst the plan to pay creditors remains in place.

Hope you are enjoying your hols, weather not too bad here just up from Tamworth.

Just now, Tamworthram said:

Genuine question, what if the winning bid involves paying creditors the required minimum % up front rather than over 3 years? Do you think we’ll still have such EFL restrictions (over and above the turnover based limit) in place?

If we don't pay all creditors in full yes, the payment of 25%/35% only stops us getting a 15 point deduction. 

Just now, PistoldPete said:

Wages are capped for everyone based on turnover. Ours will be the biggest turnover in the division so we will have an Advantage .. which we haven’t had for the last 15 years in the Championship.

We will be restricted by the EFL on what we can offer, the turnover situation doesn't come into it while we are paying the creditors.

1 minute ago, kevinhectoring said:

Sorry missed this from the second marker. Please note the last 2 lines in particular :

The anapest metric must show the following pattern: 

(da) da DA da da DA da da DA (da) (da)

(da) da DA da da DA da da DA (da) (da)

(da) da DA da da DA (da)

(da) da DA da da DA (da)

(da) da DA da da DA da da DA (da) (da)

(you can leave off the syllables in parentheses.)

But 1, 2 and 5 should match each other, and 3 and 4 should match.

Thought you were imitating a police siren.

1 minute ago, angieram said:

I quite like the idea that we run ourselves much more sustainably and that would imply more financial backing isn't a pre-requisite. 

However, I see a big disconnect between what many posters here are expecting in terms of incoming and what a modest rescue package and EFL business plan will allow.

I am thinking of a Bolton scenario, where we have a small young squad and a loyal band of followers who get that it is all going to take time.

I could live with that, I am unsure how many more could. 10,000? 

I am not sure how reflective of the active supporter base this forum actually is as all my match-going mates will 100% be there whatever the circumstances. I don't know any floating supporters so don't really know how they are thinking.

Very well put, some are expecting promotion next season already, we won't be allowed any major signings and wages will be capped for 2 years if creditors are being paid 25%. Rebuild and survive next season has to be the objective.

5 minutes ago, Topram said:

Couldn’t He just close the deal then get backers? But it sounds like he’s hoping for the loan to be agreed with the EFL to be able to sign players etc whilst looking for cash investors, could drag on longer this

Would you agree to buy a house then start looking for a mortgage?

12 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

I am hoping that the loan provided as funding for the season was budgeted to include the contract offers we have allegedly made as per the retained list submitted. It has to have been based on something to decide on a figure to be loaned.

That way we might not be able to add new faces but could at the very least extend the contracts of some of the existing squad. If we had say Cashin, Davies, Thomson, Kazim and Foz on top of the other lads on that retained list we would be in a slightly stronger position until a takeover is done. Might be wishful thinking on my part of course and would also depend on the players willingness to re-sign

At this time who is going to extend them, the administrators won't have any input to extend players contracts, that is not their remit. Doubtful Rosenior will have the authority as he is only acting caretaker until the club is bought out of administration. 

34 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Yes this hiatus between DC buying the stadium and possibly buying the club costs us a few more valuable days. 
 

But the loan is in place and there is certainty that there WILL be a takeover confirmed within days. So hopefully someone (!) is now able to move forward with plans for the squad even if players can’t yet be signed 

Not so certain the takeover will be confirmed in days if Clowes is still searching for backers.

10 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Love a bit of St Etienne..... ?

Thought that was a French cheese.

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

"League chiefs will demand Derby start the season with kids if that is what it takes"

WTF does that mean? Of course Derby will start the season, but as far as I am aware we have finance now in place to allow contracts to be renewed and free agents to be signed.. are "League chiefs" going to stop us doing that and make us play kids instead?  

Imagine until a takeover is completed we can't sign anyone. Wasn't getting finance in place purely to show that we could complete the season. Who would sign them anyway, the administrators won't and Rosenior is only taking interim charge for training etc. 

8 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

What will attract young/old talented players to our Club as we have to recognise we can't splash large amounts of cash?

Some don't seem to realise that. Yes the wage ceiling that will be imposed will be higher than the one that we have already had to work to but may not be the same as what other clubs in League 1 can offer.

3 hours ago, twinkletoes said:

Warnock there is no other choice

Besides being a doubt whether we could afford him could you really see him coming out of retirement to manage a League 1 club. Thought he was more of a chequebook manager than working with youngsters which is what anybody who gets the job is going to have to do.

7 hours ago, Bwash_Ram said:

Nigel would be the perfect man for our situation.

Seems happy at Mansfield and gets on with the owner.