Derby County Administration (with the slight possibility of Liquidation still there)

[Rambalin]

1 hour ago, Bob The Badger said:

We won't be next season and the fact that we don't own the ground is a HUGE deal. 

The fact we do not own the ground is not such a huge deal lots of clubs do not own their grounds look down the A52 for one.

Many of the Spanish and Italian clubs do not own theirs and in America too. It is only major issue to supporters and potential investors from overseas will not see it has a deal breaker. 

 

 

 

[Retro_RAM]

all this communication, I'm not sure if administrators are obligated to provide information or how much but I'm enjoying the transparency and long may it continue.

I'm not used to this, after years of either no communication or "political" communication as in they talk but give us an no answers and/or information.

[Foreveram]

2 hours ago, angieram said:

I wonder if the DET is going to create a separate article on each bullet point of the Rams Trust report? ?

I take it that’s a rhetorical question ?

[Taribo]

I hope they don't sell all our silverware

[CornwallRam]

I think that the statement on the academy could be very important.

Why would they even consider keeping it open, let alone retain its Cat 1 status? It's a drain on finances and the club could operate perfectly well without it. Maybe they want to make sure that there is a reservoir of players available in January to fill the fire sale gaps, but that would only require keeping the U23s ticking over. I believe that Cat 1 status requires a minimum outlay of £2.5m per season. Even if we take it that much of that cost is front loaded - the academy must be costing at least £100k per month.

To me, logic dictates that the administrators regard the academy as a strong selling point for the club - but they are risking a lot of the creditor's potential cash on that premise. I'd suggest that a very tenable buyer has requested that the academy remains fully operational. That in turn suggests that the takeover process is at an advanced stage.

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I think that the statement on the academy could be very important.

Why would they even consider keeping it open, let alone retain its Cat 1 status? It's a drain on finances and the club could operate perfectly well without it. Maybe they want to make sure that there is a reservoir of players available in January to fill the fire sale gaps, but that would only require keeping the U23s ticking over. I believe that Cat 1 status requires a minimum outlay of £2.5m per season. Even if we take it that much of that cost is front loaded - the academy must be costing at least £100k per month.

To me, logic dictates that the administrators regard the academy as a strong selling point for the club - but they are risking a lot of the creditor's potential cash on that premise. I'd suggest that a very tenable buyer has requested that the academy remains fully operational. That in turn suggests that the takeover process is at an advanced stage.

We have sold Hughes , hendrick, bogle and Lowe plus got a bit of compo for Delap and Gordon . That easily has covered £2.5 m for   Last few seasons , plus we have several others who would fetch a few million more . 
 

£300 k to keep it going for another three months is neither here nor there. 

[PistoldPete]

2 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

Both own their grounds and sunderland at least had gone through significant financial restructuring putting them on a path towards sustainability. Derby  in a position of not owning the ground, owing a mountain of debt and have a distinct possibility of ending up in league 1 after this season too.  

Sunderland had debts of £200 million and were losing £35 million a year so going on a path towards sustainability is all relative .. they were more of a basket case than we ever were.

[Heisenberg]

 

[therealhantsram]

4 minutes ago, Heisenberg said:

 

Sorry to say it, but I just don't believe they would have done this without something back in return. For example, first dibs on Max Bird.

[KBB]

Was arteta at Everton when rooney was there? Maybe he is looking out for an old team mate (it's not as if arsenal are desperate for that amount of money)

[Leeds Ram]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Sunderland had debts of £200 million and were losing £35 million a year so going on a path towards sustainability is all relative .. they were more of a basket case than we ever were.

when they were most recently sold earlier this year the club I believe was debt free and atm is close to being sustainably run. 

[roboto]

4 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:

Sorry to say it, but I just don't believe they would have done this without something back in return. For example, first dibs on Max Bird.

Why don't you think they're just being nice? 1.4m isn't going to be a big deal to them right now. When they wanted the last instalment (which I think was one that put us further into embargo again) we weren't in administration and they probably thought we should pay up like any other club. Now they can see the former owner has got the club into a mess and they are doing their bit to help where possible. Unlike Steve Gibson who would like to see the club disappear all together by the look of things.

[atherstoneram]

Just now, Leeds Ram said:

when they were most recently sold earlier this year the club I believe was debt free and atm is close to being sustainably run. 

Just right for an up and coming English manager to take over when the situation arises.

[Steve How Hard?]

13 minutes ago, Heisenberg said:

 

I think Arsenal have just become my 2nd favourite team. Up the Arse..........did I just say that out loud? 

[BuckoBeast]

8 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:

Sorry to say it, but I just don't believe they would have done this without something back in return. For example, first dibs on Max Bird.

Max is good. But not that good

[CornwallRam]

7 minutes ago, roboto said:

Why don't you think they're just being nice? 1.4m isn't going to be a big deal to them right now. When they wanted the last instalment (which I think was one that put us further into embargo again) we weren't in administration and they probably thought we should pay up like any other club. Now they can see the former owner has got the club into a mess and they are doing their bit to help where possible. Unlike Steve Gibson who would like to see the club disappear all together by the look of things.

I think it's also a sensible business decision. I daresay that their is some sense of not wanting to seen to be making the situation at Derby worse, however, I believe that the football creditor's rule disappears if we go into liquidation. So Arsenal can support us and get all their cash, or help to bury (or Bury) us and get maybe 10%.

[IslandExile]

32 minutes ago, Heisenberg said:

 

Nice gesture from the team that play in red because that team from down the road gave them some shirts when they were starting up.

Maybe they feel they owe the "East Midlands" but I'd like to think that football pulls together.

Of course, the Premier League as a whole could do more to help clubs below them in the pyramid. And then....

OK, nearly got me started.

Thank you Arsenal.

[rammieib]

Arsenals interest is we survive as a club so they get all their money - it’s still a class gesture.

However 1.4m in the month of October? Seems a weird payment to be required to make only a couple of months after supposedly making another one.

[hintonsboots]

Cough cough there must be more to this than meets the eye ??

[RadioactiveWaste]

Arsenal don't lose anything by differing a due payment, so if the worst happens they'll end up with what they would've got and is probably better than arguning over a default on an installment.