Jump to content

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


therams69

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Mckram said:


I can think of a few reasons:

- We were close to the Premier League in the Lampard year, so risk v reward was justified. Might be £1m a month but would have got it all back with promotion. Now there’s no reward in sight.

- He’s been talking with buyers for a couple of years but said that none worked out and he feels the only way they would buy would be from administration. They’ve forced his hand.

- He knows that the 9 point deduction was coming, so might as well lump everything in one season.

All just assumptions obviously but I can see why it’s come now rather than 3 years ago with Lampard in charge. 

These are really good points, but to me he’s bailing out. Even with a 9 points deduction we’d have a chance of staying up. He was the main decision making what got us in this mess, he should stay and get us out of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

But it's the owners fault for building on sand nobody elses

I'll tell you sumfin, I'm stearing well clear of this place, Where ever it is it aint on my holiday list, Building on sand, Nextdoors fine but his aint...got to be Haiti?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Remy the hare said:

These are really good points, but to me he’s bailing out. Even with a 9 points deduction we’d have a chance of staying up. He was the main decision making what got us in this mess, he should stay and get us out of it. 

Yeah without a doubt he should be pulling us out of this. I just hope that he’s not finished yet and we will see some sort of goodwill from him around the stadium etc.

The EFL are definitely out to get him personally though, so I’m kind of glad he’s gone in that respect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Charlotte Ram said:

administrator stated there would be no exclusivity for any bidder, so it looks like an auction, which makes sense as the administrators are almost definitely on a percentage of the sale price.

thanks that was an interesting post

maybe it's the case but I don't think it's usual for administrators to be on that sort of deal at all. I think they tend to work simply on the basis of an hourly rate.

I was surprised they thought 90 days was needed for a sale because they have a data room already set up for buyer diligence.  They told us this needs only limited updating. And some buyers have looked before. Seems to me the key timing points are agreeing a deal with HMRC and EFL. The extended sale period is costly (in administrators fees, and interest). The delay suits MSD if the value of their secured assets comfortably covers their debt and interest, because no doubt they have a very high default interest rate. Of course they have a charge on the stadium so I would think they are very comfortably covered. (Did someone say it is worth 80m? Seems hard to believe if you look at the rent!)  The ongoing costs erode the sale price and I guess the cost falls on the unsecured creditors because I don't think MM gets a penny for the shares. Well maybe a penny 

One reason they might have tried to force a quick sale is that if we go back into lockdown in November, the whole thing is in jeopardy and could impede a sale before the Jan window

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Remy the hare said:

These are really good points, but to me he’s bailing out. Even with a 9 points deduction we’d have a chance of staying up. He was the main decision making what got us in this mess, he should stay and get us out of it. 

They all run together. Arguably the risk-reward in the Lampard season was justified only if we had immediately slashed expenditure to make ourselves more sustainable once it failed. Otherwise you might find no one wants to buy your debt-ridden and loss-making business, and eventually end up with a huge points penalty for going into administration. 

The reason he couldn't find a buyer was because of the way he'd run the club. 

Edited by vonwright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

thanks that was an interesting post

maybe it's the case but I don't think it's usual for administrators to be on that sort of deal at all. I think they tend to work simply on the basis of an hourly rate.

I was surprised they thought 90 days was needed for a sale because they have a data room already set up for buyer diligence.  They told us this needs only limited updating. And some buyers have looked before. Seems to me the key timing points are agreeing a deal with HMRC and EFL. The extended sale period is costly (in administrators fees, and interest). The delay suits MSD if the value of their secured assets comfortably covers their debt and interest, because no doubt they have a very high default interest rate. Of course they have a charge on the stadium so I would think they are very comfortably covered. (Did someone say it is worth 80m? Seems hard to believe if you look at the rent!)  The ongoing costs erode the sale price and I guess the cost falls on the unsecured creditors because I don't think MM gets a penny for the shares. Well maybe a penny 

One reason they might have tried to force a quick sale is that if we go back into lockdown in November, the whole thing is in jeopardy and could impede a sale before the Jan window

We need a quick sale so that things are sorted before January. We will sell players for sure but that will be decision of the new owners and hopefully not a fire sale 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

According to the Athletic our wage bill is a lot higher than £10m. They quoted £2.5m a month. I asked Matt Slater where he got that figure from and he said 'various sources' 

Where did you get your figure from?

Without the accounts  I suspect its going to be pretty hard to pin it down. It will be interesting to see how much of the administrators information finds its way into the public domain 

 

He’s a Forest fan. We know that five senior players are on £4,500 per month some kids ebosele , macdonald and co will be on less . We only have a first team squad of 23 and so that’s about half the squad on about £500 k or less. so where do his unnamed sources get to £2.5 million per month ? That’s an average of well over £1million pa per squad player so must be wrong. 

bielik , jozwiak and Lawrence will be top earners in the £1m to £2m pa bracket but that’s pretty much it . You would hope we have insurance for bielik. 
 

when we were struggling to pay players wages it was said we needed £1 million for that month. That’s £12 million a year and we have cut costs since then .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the light of subsequent events it might be worth re-reading the first post on page one.

Back in May it read a little like the pre- launch predictions regarding RMS Titanic or even the eerily prophetic “Futility” by W T Stead about a ship named “Titan” sunk by an iceberg.

Stead died on the Titanic on 15th April 1912.

Anyone with the stamina and determination to read 107 pages might consider condensing all DCFCs recent history into faction.

”It could make a million for you overnight!” (Lennon/McCartney)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Woodley Ram said:

The EFL think we (the administrators) might appeal and I think we should. Covid is a factor and if we can show that the £8.5m would have kept us out of administration we will make a decent case for a reduction. They (EFL) said that Wigan appealed but were unsuccesful. I think with Covid our is a little different and a stronger case. Maybe they can deducte 6 points and give 6 for any other issues and leave us be.

I think this is a salient point. The Adminstrator has a duty of care to all creditors of the club. I am not convinced COVID is the prime issue for our demise personally, but it is difficult to argue that the loss of £20m revenue because of a once in a millennium pandemic is not a contributing factor. With less of a points deduction, and therefore a little better odds of escaping relegation and a further large cut in revenue next season, the club is more saleable, and for a higher sum. Morris’s relationship with the EFL was toxic; the EFL’s negotiations with professional Administrators should be much more businesslike and focussed on the real issues, not dealing with settling old scores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The administrators spread some positivity about our situation. We can’t have that can we?! Cue a Matt Slater article in the Athletic basically questioning everything the administrators said and implying a positive outcome is nowhere near as likely as they’re articulating. 
 

Not blaming Matt Slater, he’s written some good articles on this and it’s an angle no one else has run with but im sick of everyone wanting their pound of flesh out of us. I would love nothing more than getting a 21 point deduction and surviving on the last day just to see the look on that Bamford Gibsons face, furthermore Boro fail again and face FFP sanctions and Wycombe fail to get promoted (better still relegation would be nice).

Im convinced we will be back stronger and we have new rivals now -Boro Bristol Wycombe Barnsley Preston will always on the shitlist now after the despicable way they’ve come after us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rock/sand, it doesn't matter what the substrate is. It's the isolation measures and systems to absorb movement and vibration that determine whether a building survives an earthquake. Sand is actually good as a base, because it absorbs and disperses vibration. 

No-one designs buildings to survive earthquakes where they don't feature significantly on the risk assessment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Beetle said:

What's changed with Mr Morris? We've been losing £39m over three years by design under him to sail as close to ffp as possible. That's over £1m a month. Why pull the the plug now?

We haven’t been losing £39m by design, we have been losing a lot, lot more. There was a difference between FFP losses and actual losses. For instance Academy costs are excluded, which lets say run at c£5m pa. 

The only 3 years we know anything about are the 3 years up to June 17/18. Morris said on Sunday we were about £4m over FFP allowed losses. So that is £43m.  Add in Academy costs of £15m. Loss now £58m. Take out the paper profit of the stadium revaluation which was I think £41m. Loss now £99m over 3 years. Ouch. You can see how the club might need £3m pumped in per month to keep it going.

The spending didn’t stop there of course. We went big again with Lampard’s arrival. Can’t personally see that it might not have been another £33m ish loss come June 18/19. Then we bought Bielik!

Only when EFL embargo and COVID kicked in did Morris smell the coffee, and his underpants.

Edited by i-Ram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, atherstoneram said:

Yes it is an unprecedented event,but that didn't just apply to us it was across the board, other clubs haven't been forced into administration by it.

They have not yet but doesn’t mean they will not be, lots of clubs recording record losses and will be in discussions with their lenders/backers. The EFL I understand have agreed to exclude losses directly attributable to the pandemic from P&S loss limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, atherstoneram said:

How can you be so sure,that is a bold statement to make.

I think £20m would comfortably be enough to service a debt estimated between £60-£80m. The “Other Creditor” amount due within 12months in the latest set of accounts for Gellaw was £7m if my memory serves me correct which I assume is to service the MSD loans.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...