Jump to content

Derby Fail to Pay Players On Time (Again)


DarkFruitsRam7

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 578
  • Created
  • Last Reply
26 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

It’s not necessarily a case of the club (under Mel) being cash strapped.

It looks like the transaction hasn’t completed yet when it was supposed to have.

Mel would be expecting the other party to have completed and paid the wages if they fell after the takeover.

Mel will not pay the wages if he expects the other party to!

This could be an admin problem, it’s a bad time of year for transactions of this magnitude. However as others have said this doesn't look good from a PR perspective!

It’s not Mel paying wages, it’s Derby County paying wages.

The club obviously didn’t have £2 million or so to pay the December wages sitting in the account and were reliant on receiving money from the new takeover.

Given everything that’s happened, the amount of ‘48 hours’ that have come and gone, if this thing doesn’t get resolved today, tomorrow or Monday, then players wages will be delayed again (unless the club takes a loan or at that point Mel subsidises) and that won’t look good.

I doubt we are the only club having this difficulty at this point in time. With next to no regular cash coming into all clubs, it must be so difficult out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Red Ram said:

Agree 100%. To let this happen now when we've just turned the corner on the pitch is a complete dereliction of duty by the current ownership structure. Could easily damage morale to the extent that it affects results, which increases the risk that whoever owns the club owns a League One club for the 21/22 season. Whatever last minute logistical issues have arisen (and personally I'll only be convinced it's happening when it's a done deal), arrangements should have been in place to ensure the players got paid regardless. A bridging loan for example. Given the history of this takeover so far, further hitches shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone. Until the deal goes through it's Morris's club and therefore Morris's responsibility.

Of course last new year when the didn't get paid on time they got 13 points from the next six league games ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, ShoreRam said:

To use the house buying analogy again, you don't send the money until Ts are crossed and Is are dotted. Also, the more money the sending, the more checks and balances are in place so it takes a bit of time.

In other words, you keep paying the mortgage till completion and the deeds belong to someone else. 

I would assume that we knew the deal wouldn't cross the line till the new year . Seems basic for the ongoing chairman to ensure funds are there to cover it till then. If the potential new owners promised to cover the wage as the delay was something to do with them then the a bunch of chancers on top.  Del boy buying a car from Boyce Motors springs to mind with this cluster.

bdMGKnAT7_QtBBWUNjhr3MO_JECRc0V6n4JE0ceV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main thing to take from this story is we can now actually say the end to this is imminent. Either the funds land and takeover goes through or it doesn’t and like Gabay the Sheikh will go away and Mel will be continuing his search for an owner. I have no reason to doubt it’s the former, as the only arguments to the contrary have been pure baseless speculation, hypothetical comparisons to Newcastle and even ridiculous comparisons to Wigan. 
 

As for players not being paid this month, they’ve been communicated to and are fully aware of the situation no drama there (unless they subsequently kick off to the contrary). Quite a reasonable scenario to assume both parties targeted to complete a this month, Mel therefore didn’t make additional funds available to the club accounts on the expectation it would be completed, and deadlines have been missed due to holiday periods. Not ideal by any stretch but certainly not the drama that is being made out by some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rammieib said:

It’s not Mel paying wages, it’s Derby County paying wages.

The club obviously didn’t have £2 million or so to pay the December wages sitting in the account and were reliant on receiving money from the new takeover.

Given everything that’s happened, the amount of ‘48 hours’ that have come and gone, if this thing doesn’t get resolved today, tomorrow or Monday, then players wages will be delayed again (unless the club takes a loan or at that point Mel subsidises) and that won’t look good.

I doubt we are the only club having this difficulty at this point in time. With next to no regular cash coming into all clubs, it must be so difficult out there.

Mel runs it hence why I referenced him as a means to differentiate between the two groups.

Mels Derby won’t pay (despite being contractually obliged) until either:

A) the takeover collapses 

B) an agreement is made for mels Derby to pay to tide the gap till the admin is complete and Derventio can start paying.

Mels Derby is contractually obliged to pay the players and I’m sure they will if  the takeover collapses.

However Derventio’s delay looks to be causing the problem from the info we have here.

It’s not necessarily ability to pay. Would you pay a wagebill that wasn’t necessarily your responsibility without finding out if the other party was in a position to pay or not?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Derbados said:

Its instantaneous, or can take up to a couple of hours at most but certainly not days etc unless they’ve written them a cheque! 
 

I would probably suggest the delay is the lawyer themselves, having to confirm the funds have arrived and notify the other party, much like selling /buying a house. 


 

 

Is this the funds to pay the wages, buy the Club or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ramarena said:

It’s not necessarily a case of the club (under Mel) being cash strapped.

It looks like the transaction hasn’t completed yet when it was supposed to have.

Mel would be expecting the other party to have completed and paid the wages if they fell after the takeover.

Mel will not pay the wages if he expects the other party to!

This could be an admin problem, it’s a bad time of year for transactions of this magnitude. However as others have said this doesn't look good from a PR perspective!

This makes sense, let us hope it is correct.

Burnley have now been taken over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Woodley Ram said:

I wasn't paid by the Police 2 or 3 times when I was a bobby, it is one of those things  

Were you on Roxanne? That Sting fella caused a few problems behind the scenes I heard. Just ask  Stewart Copeland I think he wasn’t paid either for that track so you’re in good company 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TigerTedd said:

I agree. Although could they have come up with an agreement that Mel would pay the wages this month, and the shiek can pay him back when it all goes through. 

I imagine you couldn’t do something like that on a gentleman’s agreement though, so it would probably take longer to officially sort out that agreement than it would to just wait fkr the takeover to be complete and the money to arrive. 

This was expected to be completed this month...... all of the financials in the agreement will have been clearly mapped out through the transition of ownership therefore it is perfectly feasible for the wages to be paid post sale and out of the funds transferred.  It’s easier to delay payment a few days (clearly communicated to those concerned) than to unravel the legal basis of the sale.

I fully expect the sale to be confirmed shortly (avoiding stating the next 48 hours ?). ?????????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ramarena said:

It’s not necessarily a case of the club (under Mel) being cash strapped.

It looks like the transaction hasn’t completed yet when it was supposed to have.

Mel would be expecting the other party to have completed and paid the wages if they fell after the takeover.

Mel will not pay the wages if he expects the other party to!

This could be an admin problem, it’s a bad time of year for transactions of this magnitude. However as others have said this doesn't look good from a PR perspective!

This makes sense, let us hope it is correct.

Burnley have now been taken over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...