atherstoneram

As usual, the EFL narrative implies that things are going wrong (in this final process) and that they *must* intervene. Self-protective bullsh!t.
Q have to honour confidentiality, and other privacy law. 
Q will select the chosen bidder...NOT the EFL; the EFL are there to ensure the buyer complies with their Rules & Regulations and 'fit & proper test'. Birch and his leaky, duplicitous cronies do not sit round a table with Q sifting the bids.
Unfortunately, the EFL have perpetually shown themselves to lack confidentiality, feeding clickbait media, and have also wilfully impeded processes.
Their damaging acquiescence about the creditor status of the parasite claims (which in itself added months to the admin process and they blocked/discouraged bidders with such 'obstacles' since last December) - and between themselves and Q, gave Kirchner many weeks too long to complete.
I expect that after this protracted fiasco, if any enquiry or investigation takes place, the sky will fall in on both Q and the EFL, and we will be well rid of both of them.
It seems that if the club survives, it will be in spite of their efforts, rather than because of them ? 
 
 

But he hasn't been appointed as administrator of the club.

Nothing to do with Birch regarding the bidding process.

I think that it's vitally important at this time that Derby fans focus on who the bad guys are in this situation. 
Almost from the start of administrations the EFL have been an 'enemy'. For them to start posturing and grandstanding now is a complete insult in my opinion, and no Rams fan should be under any illusion that their current 'concern' for our welfare is completely disingenuous, they couldn't give a f***, their only concern is for their own future and the torrent of criticism that will come their way if we go out of business.
Add to that the way Quantuma have conducted this administration, and Rams fans have been abandoned on all sides.
We are in a position where rich men on all sides of our current predicament are happy to lie and leak stories to the media as long as it furthers their cause.
I'm surprised by how much fighting there is on this forum, as in my opinion we have to stick together, nobody else is going to fight for us, be sure of that.

That's why administrators are appointed, nothing to do with the EFL.

That's  exactly right Indy. Q has said some bidders have gone public (like ashley has, selectively) and some want to remain anoymous, which is their right.  Q has to respect the privacy of those  bidders who want to keep their privacy.   

With the greatest respect, that last paragraph is drivel. Birch’s reply sounds like Quantuma have said they are happy to share discussions, but it would also require the permission of the other parties involved (ie the bidder) who have not given their consent. Having leaked like a sieve for a year, I’m not surprised bidders want to keep the EFL away from a closed and confidential bidding process. 

That's why administrators are appointed, nothing to do with the EFL.

But he hasn't been appointed as administrator of the club.

It's the responsibility of the administrators to serve the needs of the creditors, not Derby County and not the EFL. Given the flak Kirchner received on the socials, it's also hardly surprising that current bidders are reticent to open themselves up and potentially the businesses they represent to any such recriminations, at least until such time as they may be nominated preferred bidders. They may also wish to conceal their interest from other bidders too.
I'm no Quantuma shill but I do at least recognise that in this regard, their hands are tied. Any unlawful disclosure could see their license revoked and the firm hauled into court. With Ashley already issuing writs, I'm sure they are especially keen not to add to that list.

Yes, that's how mob rule works especially when members of the mob are too busy looking after their own interests and too scared to look introspectively at their own failings. 
Its far easier to capitalise on ill feeling and get others on board than it is the other way round. 

As to the question of what the bidders have to hide, I’d say it’s fairly obvious. First up, they don’t want other bidders to know what kind of deal they are offering, as they don’t want to be gazumped (especially since Quantuma are trying to run a best and final offer only process).  You don’t want to bid £40m only to have Mike Ashley come in the day after with £40.1m. And secondly, they don’t want other clubs to know what kind of funds they are willing to put up for us, if they try to buy another club in the future.  They won’t want to fail to buy us, go after another league one club, only to be told “but you were willing to bid £40m for Derby…” etc.

Sorry airam, I dont think you get the process here. There are multiple bidders/ interested parties, and also multiple creditors. There will only be one winner, and the creditors will all be losers. So that's a lot of unhappy punters. And those unhappy punters will all be blaming Q, most of it unfairly.  

Am I reading DCFC Fans here or am I reading an ill-informed Twitter rant? It's increasingly hard to tell the difference. 
We need PROGRESS... That can only come from a bidder putting forward their offer. 
It was OBVIOUS the deal was going to die... actually I agree from a concerned fans perspective, but nothing legally pointed to the same conclusion and there was a legal obligation to go with CKs bid. 
What are they HIDING? Whatever is disclosed in NDAs that even the potential bidders haven't at this point revealed. Why do you only criticise one party for not releasing this information? 
Now you're criticising the administration for facilitating our chances of staying up but I can only imagine what you'd have said if they sold every single asset we had in January and we'd been relegated in March.  Maybe you supported that idea at the time though, in which case feel free to claim some validation. 

You mean the admin team are abiding by the law by respecting the confidentiality of any bids? What else do you expect them to do? Break the law and let EFL have information that the bidders want to keep private?

Outside of football most administrations are asset only sales, you only buy the assets not the business you therefore are not liable for debts which are not secured on the assets you are purchasing, also you do not have to pay HMRC as their debts stay behind with the insolvent business whose assets you have purchased. HMRC get any value from uncollected debtors or sale of machinery not included in the asset sale so they usually get crumbs. What is different here is that the EFL is a members club and if you want  to remain a member then you can only buy the business, which is the club and so you have to take ownership of the debts incurred by the club.
winding the club up would essentially remove all debts but would mean starting  again from the bottom of the pyramid 

It's well established by now though that someone taking over a football club is expected to want to avoid a points penalty by paying the 25% if they are able. Otherwise why even bother with  the rule / punishment?
Nobody expects a new owner to pay "The debts" no, "a fraction of the debts" though? Possibly. 
Can anyone inform me what happens in most instances of administration outside of football, percentage to creditors wise. 
Either way this argument is only considering one aspect of Ashley's approach, which I think most of his dissenters would understand and sympathise with if it wasn't paired with his other known practices as an owner.

It'll be the biggest debt of any club placed into administration though, won't it? 
The most complex one to sort out with claims by other clubs and the need for someone to buy the stadium to boot. 

It's not Ashley's fault that the businesses are owed money - that blame lies with Morris......

You mean the local businesses that have already been shafted. By businesses you must mean fast food shops and pubs.

Indeed, the administrators will give them as long as possible for a bidder to come up with a credible offer and it is no use saying they must accept a bid, even the highest bid may not be enough then there will come a time when the EFL will say time is up. Don't believe the club is too big to be liquidated, no business is too big, the debt may just be too high.

Indeed, the administrators will give them as long as possible for a bidder to come up with a credible offer and it is no use saying they must accept a bid, even the highest bid may not be enough then there will come a time when the EFL will say time is up. Don't believe the club is too big to be liquidated, no business is too big, the debt may just be too high.

If you think about it from the creditors' point of view, why wouldn't they talk to multiple bidders?
Too many people are thinking that they are appointed for our benefit. They aren't. 

Isn't one of the conditions to exit administration that football creditors have to be paid in full up front.

Not at all, they legally don't have to divulge any information to us, the process doesn't concern the fans or give us any entitlement what is going on. Only creditors can ask such questions and then will only be on a need to know basis.