atherstoneram

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

How will they get money back via an new owner if a new owner won't pay as much because there's been a player fire sale?

That won't concern the creditors,they will see players that could be sold, once a percentage agreement is reached that is it,that's what they get. The future doesn't have an impact on the percentage agreed to as far as creditors are concerned.

6 minutes ago, RAM1966 said:

Its a very realistic one, here is where we are in a nutshell.

HMRC - Slow and will not write on penny off, just give time to pay.

Creditors - 25% a done deal

No Stadium - Mel should just toss it in if MSDs debts are cleared but wants some money back.

Mels Soft loans - Not so much osf an issue but he needs to agree to write off and gift the stadium, can;t see him doing both.

Wycombe & Boro - These could sink the club if they do not be sensible and think their ******* owners will try and sink the club just to get at Morris.....

All of these are very difficult to balance and get agreed, I think we will run out of time and end up as Derby City, playing non-league next season

The creditors could be playing a waiting game to see what funds if any are realised during the transfer window. If we don't sell anyone to show that the administrators are trying their best to bring in additional money i can't see an agreement being reached.

Just now, I know nuffin said:

So will selling players bring 60, million in because in liquidation we have previous few assets with any value. Best deal for creditors is for the club to be sold

No, it won't bring in £60M but it will bring some money in,we have precious few assets as it is at the moment. 

2 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I doubt a fire sale will raise enough money to make a difference to what creditors might receive, but a liquidation will, though not in a beneficial way. 

The only party I could see thinking that liquidation might benefit them is MSD, but even that requires either a viable phoenix club to rent or buy the stadium, or a redevelopment which has little chance of happening. 

I really don't see who a liquidation benefits other than clubs that fancy signing our players on the cheap. That's not to say it won't happen though. 

Creditors might be of the opinion that if they don't get what is acceptable to them why should the club survive. they might not see it as viable with having so many players out of contract at the end of the season.

The administrators primary role is to work for the creditors and then try to sell the club as a going concern. If the club doesn't sell players next month to pacify the creditors i think it will be difficult to sell the club.

Just now, PistoldPete said:

Repeating the same thing 100 times doesn’t make it true. 
 

selling players in a fire sale will put buyers off, in fact that’s exactly what Kirchner is saying. 

 No it doesn't make it true but it is logical.

Creditors won't be concerned about the club selling players,all they will be interested in is getting as much as they can back, if that includes getting rid of players in a fire sale putting off prospective new owners is not something the creditors will lose any sleep over

Who knows,creditors might have rejected the offer put to them,why would they accept say 25% of what they are owed when the club has £1M players on the books,sell the best players,raise as much as you can and come back with another offer.Also it won't have gone unnoticed that the club didn't sell Buchanan when they had an offer made for him to help reduce or seem to want to reduce the debt.

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Statement from the admin team is simply not good enough.

if there are delays given the previous communications from them then they need to be explicit about why.

it’s no good talking about positive discussions they are having. Kirchner doesn’t seem to think it’s positive. Maybe he won’t be the preferred bidder but really right now if he drops out the preferred bidder could be chosen by default .. there might be only one left!

You are not entitled to know anything about the situation,they do not have to be explicit to anyone why there are delays

3 hours ago, r_wilcockson said:

There are obviously problems that the administrators are having difficulty overcoming, their role is to get the best possible result for creditors not to pamper to prospective new owners. I would say committing over £60M over the next 2 years is not much when you consider the debt we have. If the above is genuine he sounds more like a petulant child,it is not another fake deadline, they have never said that was guaranteed, they have always said,we expect, we hope. Things are obviously more complicated than anticipated and may be having problems coming to an agreement with creditors.  

23 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I think we need a very good reason why this has slipped again so soon after announcing to the fans and to the players that it was expected this week.

amd if anyone is to blame for the delay the. The fingers should be firmly pointed at them. Wycombe, Boro … you are first in the firing line you parasitical lowlifes.

There may well be a good reason but the administrators are not under any obligation to disclose that information to the fans.

1 hour ago, hintonsboots said:

I only selected this GIF for the finger tapping, which accurately depicts the waiting game we are subjected too. ?

She's not yet realised somebody has taken her keyboard.

20 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

If Pearce was telling him it was ok and his auditors were telling him it was ok etc then why shouldn’t he think we were within Ffp limits?

The question is,was he prepared to listen to anyone,it's my club etc,etc .......

16 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I think he thought we were within FFP, and the IDC said it was a reasonable mistake. The accounts were quite up front about it and said that PPS was sold to keep us within FFP . Nothing hidden at all really.

And he thought he could pull another rabbit out of the hat by selling the club and writing off losses. That didn't happen, blame him for that maybe? But COVID and EFL action didn't help. Towards the end he must have realised the wheels were coming off but i would hardly expect him to shout out about it. 
 

No, he just left the mess he created for someone else to clean it up.

1 hour ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Today must be the day folks, update/announcement imminent?

Everyone excited?

Quantuma gotta hit a target they set themselves eventually surely, preffered target must be the first, even if 3rd time lucky ?

Not until they have come to an agreement with HMRC. 

People are going on about HMRC accepting 25% of what is owed, why would they do that when the club still has valuable assets to dispose of (players) to raise more capital thus them getting a bigger payout. There is every possibility they have spoken to independent experts to get an assessment of player values. 

4 hours ago, Eatonram said:

Not support as I said later but I think it is in all the other Club’s interest that Clubs suing each other over rule breaches that have been dealt with by existing disciplinary procedures does not become part of the game due to this precedent. Your response will come as no surprise to anyone. 

I am not on about other clubs suing each other but am merely saying that clubs are in it for themselves so why would they offer support to a competitor.

12 hours ago, Eatonram said:

Fair point Bobbster, in that no one can say for sure that QPR cost us promotion by their overspend......just as no one can say for sure that DCFC cost Boro promotion or Wycombe relegation by our much smaller overspend.....The difference is that DCFC are being sued and QPR were not, despite us argueably having a stronger case. What Galls is that we have been publicly lambasted far more than any other Club, denied Covid loans and now being sued for far more than the fine you actually paid and yet not a single Club, even previous transgressors like QPR have offered the slightest support. In fact what did your striker do at Pride Park a few weeks ago?

Football is now big business, we are the competition,do you really expect other clubs to show support.

13 hours ago, Woodley Ram said:

I think its about the season as a whole and that our overspending meant we were given an unfair advantage. The flaw is that could be argued for Reading and a load of others. If what they mean is that we should have received a points deduction last year then that is the remit of the EFL and their appeal format. 

it would be difficult to prove Gibson's or theirs but that's not the point. We cannot sell the club until its out of the way and the wait only damages us. So in essence what they are saying is give us some money and we will not take this further and you will survive if not you might go to the wall. They are opportunists and people should look at them as they are, two clubs scavenging off the bones of another to get a few quid. If not why didn't Wycombe go after Wednesday or Reading. Why didn't Gibson go after Villa, its because neither is in administration.

 

Because they submitted their yearly accounts into the EFL and we didn't submit any for 2 - 3 years, we don't know what was discovered if anything after the administrators submitted the outstanding accounts. Did MM have something to hide?

4 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

I'd be surprised if this happens before the new year for England tbh. I'd also say it's premature given we don't yet know the data on likely hospitalisations only infection rates. 

But if measures are taken to help control a growing infection rate thus keeping hospitalisation down by playing behind closed doors and keeping the NHS from being overwhelmed surely it is better to do it earlier rather than later

1 minute ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

You are absolutely right.

The alternative will be he'll leave and say i cannot carry on like this. I was told no player sales without my say so but i cannot accept this etc...and who would blame him tbf

I think he will be off anyway if Kirchner is not the winning bidder or he drops out.

2 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

Occured to me roo. The idea they are trying to reach a prompt consensual agreement with parasites who want 50m plus in damages is either extremely naive or an excuse for extended negotiations whilst they get paid by the hour. I would be surprised if prospective owners insisted on this being settled pre-sale knowing that they will have to pay out for extremely weak claims post-sale.

HMRC seem on board, Morris & MSD have given verbal assurances & the EFL penalty issue has beeen resolved. These are the 3 main issues. We have to pay football  creditors in full anyway so would think we shouldn't be far from the threshold to get a creditors agreement.

This smacks of unnecessary delay.

Negotiating with HMRC doesn't mean they are on board,if they were on board what they are willing to accept would probably have been resolved by now seeing as they have been in talks for a few weeks.

Just now, Tyler Durden said:

Does concern me the way the administrators have placed the responsibility for players being sold onto Rooney which I find quite unfair....like Wayne do you want to sell Jozwiak - not really - ok but just to let you know if we don't then we can't pay next month's bills. But it's your choice ?

I think it's more of backing Rooneys statement where he said no players would be sold without his say so.

1 minute ago, Tyler Durden said:

I'm not venting my spleen at the administrators as they are only at the football club at all because of one person but so far they've been really poor at managing expectations.

Cynically too the longer it drags on the greater their whack.

The web that MM weaved has probably been bigger than originally identified.

9 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Derbys administration is no different to any other football  administration in that HMRC will get a share of what is available. They will probably get a bigger share than the rest of the unsecured creditors due to their new found preferred status. I very much doubt that will be 100%.   

The timeline , in case you forget is that COVID happened in march 2020. The authorities decided players should carry on playing , so they needed to be paid their wages, but there was little or no income coming in. The football authorities applied for help from the Government but that was refused, wrongly in my view. 

 

Instead they sough help from Premier league all they got was a loan and even that Derby were deemed  not eligible for.

 

So I'm not surprised that Derby cannot afford to pay HMRC. Thats no-one's fault but the Government's fault and they are the ones now claiming money. They are on dodgy moral grounds to say the least.

 

 

 

 That's just your view that the government was wrong not to get involved. In my view the government aren't to blame for our current position.

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

But that was after the failed winding up order. Same with us . HMRC issued a winding up order for Derby in January 2020.

Doesn't matter when they went into administration and was in the same position we now find ourselves in,yes we might well have 2 or 3 interested parties taking the club on but if we can't come to a satisfactory CVA regarding the outstanding debts with parties concerned we could finish up in the same position. Time will tell.

58 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

 Bury were not in adminstration. That's the point of a CVA.

Bury did  go into administration

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11774/12144311/bury-fc-placed-into-administration-as-battle-for-existence-continues

4 hours ago, Crewton said:

Rooney said Bird should be fine for Cardiff - no mention of a muscle injury. He went off because of the head injury as a precaution.

I would imagine it depends on how fast Bird Flu spreads, a lot of it about at the moment ?