Abu Derby County

[WilkoRam]

34 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Errr, OK but it was just a joke! ?

So is this a take over thread or a joke thread now?

[europia]

1 minute ago, Coconut said:

The BZI website does list sailing as one of the sheikh's main hobbies...

Could be a typo, perhaps should have read 'failing.....to buy English pro football clubs' 

[ram1964]

What page would you like myself to reiterate that this take over ain't happening and hasn't been for the best part of 300 pages.

Close the thread the shieks a shambles, never had a pot but plenty of piss.?

[oomarkwright]

1 minute ago, ram1964 said:

What page would you like myself to reiterate that this take over ain't happening and hasn't been for the best part of 300 pages.

Close the thread the shieks a shambles, never had a pot but plenty of piss.?

If it reaches 464 I'll start to believe you and you can come on and tell us you told us so! 

[oldtimeram]

On 24/01/2021 at 15:07, StrawHillRam said:

12 minutes ago, oomarkwright said:

If it reaches 464 I'll start to believe you and you can come on and tell us you told us so! 

 

 

This thread should be closed now.  Everyone knows it is not going to happen.

 

In the very unlikely event it is resurrected, we can then start a new thread, or re-open this one. 

 

[sage]

Just now, oldtimeram said:

This thread should be closed now.  Everyone knows it is not going to happen.

 

In the very unlikely event it is resurrected, we can then start a new thread, or re-open this one. 

 

Why should it be closed? If you don't think it's going to happen just ignore it. 

Its like moaning about the beer in a pub you never go in.

 

[Ambitious]

6 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

That's the problem though.  Not one single one of us know that as fact. 
Yes, he was still the legal owner, which appears to suggest that he's responsible for paying the wages of course... but is it not even slightly possible (*Genuine question... I ain't no business owner!) that contracts were signed, to come into effect from a certain date (e.g. from 24/12/20)?  Or maybe even a "gentleman's agreement"?  And the agreement being that from that date, all outgoings are to be funded by the new guys, and Mel is to close his account?  Any other approach, and it F's up the selling price?

Only on, or immediately after, that date, did Mel then need to talk to them (urgently!), ask them wtf the funds were, and subsequently... eventually... feel the need to raise funds from elsewhere (be that the pocket of his gaberdine mac in the wardrobe, other investors, or third party loans).  Maybe he had to tidy up a few loose ends, and get certain promises and/or agreements in place, (perhaps even a renegotiation of the selling price) before he had "The power" to once again pay the players?

With the "assurances" coming from the club, around that time, I'd say it was quite feasible that these guys have taken Mel for a ride, and left him in quite a considerably embarrassing position, as well as leaving him to tidy up this whole sorry mess.

Yes, argue that it is a mess of his own doing, if that is your want, but to state as fact that "It was within his power to pay the players" on the specific date they were due, suggests you know more than the rest of us.  (Maybe you do?  Then let's have it!)

I don't deny, the above could be 100% total crap... but until such factual evidence is made public (so never, then!), then your statement could... to a lesser degree... also be total crap!

 

... or not... as the case may be?  

 

?‍♂️

 

 

EDIT:

Sorry.  Posted that before seeing the post above from @Theres’s Only Wan Chope, which I heartily agree with.  

We know the contracts have been exchanged and we're now just waiting on the money to be sent over, at least that's my understanding. The contracts were exchanged in November. I would agree that puts Mel in some kind of bind, whereby you could almost understand a day or two - even a week. An entire month, let alone the month where the transfer window is open, which put us in a transfer embargo doesn't sit right with me. We are led to believe that he had to take out another loan to finance the club, perhaps it's just the fact he has a cash flow problem and he simply doesn't have the money to support the club, which would be a huge shame. 

I do think it's either Mel's ran out of cash or he's sick of funding a project that he wants rid of and in his mind sold. It could be both. 

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, WilkoRam said:

So is this a take over thread or a joke thread now?

or (as I think you are suggesting) a joke takeover thread   ?

[ram1964]

1 hour ago, WilkoRam said:

So is this a take over thread or a joke thread now?

The take over is a joke ?

[one_chop]

Still nothing ?.

 

Tick Tock 

[SouthernRam]

This takeover is dead in the water and we all know it.

The club will be delaying the official statement until February to avoid clubs circling around our key players on the cheap.

Mel will be at the helm the rest of this season to try and guide us out of the relegation battle with the view to finding fresh investment in the summer.

[oldtimeram]

10 hours ago, sage said:

Why should it be closed? If you don't think it's going to happen just ignore it. 

Its like moaning about the beer in a pub you never go in.

 

It's pointless now.  Ain't never going to happen. 

[sage]

8 minutes ago, oldtimeram said:

It's pointless now.  Ain't never going to happen. 

Then why keep posting? What harm is it doing you? 

[StarterForTen]

IF a contract has been signed as reported in some quarters and IF the completion date was to be December 24th 2020 then we would now be looking at a breach of terms. In all contracts there will be mechanisms to deal with this and, normally, they start with the serving of a Notice outlining the breach and demanding remedy within the prescribed time frame (quite often 7 or 14 days).

IF that Notice goes unheeded then the Breach becomes a Persistent Breach and, again, there will be mechanisms within the contract to deal with this and, most likely, unlocks some, or all, of the commitments of the damaged party. Until that point is reached, its is very difficult for the damaged party to act outside of the terms of the contract otherwise they too could be considered to have breached.

IF December 24th was the completion date then is it is not a giant leap to assume that the payment of December wages and all commitments beyond that date (unless specifically dealt with within the commercial terms of the sale contract) fall on the new owner. As such, the current owner would not want - or be able - to pay them.

Given the way this whole pantomime has played out (and I'm guessing about this just as much as any of us are) I would suggest the breaches have been noticed and enacted which is why the players were paid when they were.

Both parties will be keen to sort this out - Mel wants a sale and BZI (or whoever they actually represent) don't want to be sued for breach of contract - hence the lack of noise from either camp, but the longer this goes on, the more likely it will end in a court and, our good friend Nick De Marco QC will no doubt be able to order an even larger yacht.

As others have suggested, it looks like BZI are a stalking horse organisation who look to negotiate the purchase of a football club (or other asset for that matter) as an investment tool for others taking a commission for doing so, and, in this case, have had their expected funding rug whipped from under their feet at the last minute.

Of course, this is all guesswork.

[Rab a dab doo]

So is a broken pencil but remember it can be 'sharpened' and then have a POINT again !

[Gaspode]

24 minutes ago, sage said:

Then why keep posting? What harm is it doing you? 

Attention seeking?

[Tamworthram]

25 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

IF a contract has been signed as reported in some quarters and IF the completion date was to be December 24th 2020 then we would now be looking at a breach of terms. In all contracts there will be mechanisms to deal with this and, normally, they start with the serving of a Notice outlining the breach and demanding remedy within the prescribed time frame (quite often 7 or 14 days).

IF that Notice goes unheeded then the Breach becomes a Persistent Breach and, again, there will be mechanisms within the contract to deal with this and, most likely, unlocks some, or all, of the commitments of the damaged party. Until that point is reached, its is very difficult for the damaged party to act outside of the terms of the contract otherwise they too could be considered to have breached.

IF December 24th was the completion date then is it is not a giant leap to assume that the payment of December wages and all commitments beyond that date (unless specifically dealt with within the commercial terms of the sale contract) fall on the new owner. As such, the current owner would not want - or be able - to pay them.

Given the way this whole pantomime has played out (and I'm guessing about this just as much as any of us are) I would suggest the breaches have been noticed and enacted which is why the players were paid when they were.

Both parties will be keen to sort this out - Mel wants a sale and BZI (or whoever they actually represent) don't want to be sued for breach of contract - hence the lack of noise from either camp, but the longer this goes on, the more likely it will end in a court and, our good friend Nick De Marco QC will no doubt be able to order an even larger yacht.

As others have suggested, it looks like BZI are a stalking horse organisation who look to negotiate the purchase of a football club (or other asset for that matter) as an investment tool for others taking a commission for doing so, and, in this case, have had their expected funding rug whipped from under their feet at the last minute.

Of course, this is all guesswork.

Doesn't that all depends on what the actual terms of the potential signed contract are?

Maybe there is something in the contract that says completion will take place as and when certain conditions have been met (or similar). 

[RedSox]

30 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

IF a contract has been signed as reported in some quarters and IF the completion date was to be December 24th 2020 then we would now be looking at a breach of terms. In all contracts there will be mechanisms to deal with this and, normally, they start with the serving of a Notice outlining the breach and demanding remedy within the prescribed time frame (quite often 7 or 14 days).

IF that Notice goes unheeded then the Breach becomes a Persistent Breach and, again, there will be mechanisms within the contract to deal with this and, most likely, unlocks some, or all, of the commitments of the damaged party. Until that point is reached, its is very difficult for the damaged party to act outside of the terms of the contract otherwise they too could be considered to have breached.

IF December 24th was the completion date then is it is not a giant leap to assume that the payment of December wages and all commitments beyond that date (unless specifically dealt with within the commercial terms of the sale contract) fall on the new owner. As such, the current owner would not want - or be able - to pay them.

Given the way this whole pantomime has played out (and I'm guessing about this just as much as any of us are) I would suggest the breaches have been noticed and enacted which is why the players were paid when they were.

Both parties will be keen to sort this out - Mel wants a sale and BZI (or whoever they actually represent) don't want to be sued for breach of contract - hence the lack of noise from either camp, but the longer this goes on, the more likely it will end in a court and, our good friend Nick De Marco QC will no doubt be able to order an even larger yacht.

As others have suggested, it looks like BZI are a stalking horse organisation who look to negotiate the purchase of a football club (or other asset for that matter) as an investment tool for others taking a commission for doing so, and, in this case, have had their expected funding rug whipped from under their feet at the last minute.

Of course, this is all guesswork.

A well-reasoned supposition.  Might just be 'nail on head' there.

[Rampage]

59 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

IF a contract has been signed as reported in some quarters and IF the completion date was to be December 24th 2020 then we would now be looking at a breach of terms. In all contracts there will be mechanisms to deal with this and, normally, they start with the serving of a Notice outlining the breach and demanding remedy within the prescribed time frame (quite often 7 or 14 days).

IF that Notice goes unheeded then the Breach becomes a Persistent Breach and, again, there will be mechanisms within the contract to deal with this and, most likely, unlocks some, or all, of the commitments of the damaged party. Until that point is reached, its is very difficult for the damaged party to act outside of the terms of the contract otherwise they too could be considered to have breached.

IF December 24th was the completion date then is it is not a giant leap to assume that the payment of December wages and all commitments beyond that date (unless specifically dealt with within the commercial terms of the sale contract) fall on the new owner. As such, the current owner would not want - or be able - to pay them.

Given the way this whole pantomime has played out (and I'm guessing about this just as much as any of us are) I would suggest the breaches have been noticed and enacted which is why the players were paid when they were.

Both parties will be keen to sort this out - Mel wants a sale and BZI (or whoever they actually represent) don't want to be sued for breach of contract - hence the lack of noise from either camp, but the longer this goes on, the more likely it will end in a court and, our good friend Nick De Marco QC will no doubt be able to order an even larger yacht.

As others have suggested, it looks like BZI are a stalking horse organisation who look to negotiate the purchase of a football club (or other asset for that matter) as an investment tool for others taking a commission for doing so, and, in this case, have had their expected funding rug whipped from under their feet at the last minute.

Of course, this is all guesswork.

If this went through then who would the 'owners' actually be. Who would have the controlling interest.

[MACKWORTHRAM]

17 days ago. Stephen Pearce came on Radio Derby. 

Said all was ok. Players would be paid imminently. 

No reason to doubt the takeover. We talk to the new owners at least once a day. 

The players were paid exactly 2 weeks later. 

There has been absolutely nothing from the club since.

If they are speaking to these new owners at least twice a day. What on earth are they talking about? Genuinely. All that's left is to pay. 

Why is this still being dragged out?

Lies. Lies. Lies.