Jump to content

Alan Nixon Breaks Silence on American Billionaire Bid

Kernow

By Kernow
in Derby County Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Most active in this topic

Popular Days

Most active in this topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

RamsfanJim
RamsfanJim

We're OK to share this - full minutes on Monday now..  * There are 3 interested bidders that Quantuma are still negotiating with. Each bid is complicated and each is taking time for Quantuma to f

i-Ram
i-Ram

After 8 weeks of silence, DET are today reporting that Mel Morris can be heard on Desert Island Discs this coming Sunday on BBC Radio 4 https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/mel-morris-

angieram
angieram

I could re-write that article saying CK is coming over to further demonstrate his commitment to buying the club and to see what he can do to help speed up the process. Nothing factual would have chang

Posted Images

kevinhectoring

kevinhectoring

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Sorry Iram I meant MSD has control over the Gellaw Company's bank account, the Morris vehicle that owns PPS. That Company is not in administration. 

MSD will have total control over those accounts almost definitely under security documents requiring the bank to do as MSD says in the event of a default 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ariotofmyown

ariotofmyown

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, i-Ram said:

How you see it is incorrect on a great many levels. I will work through it in order for you, so you stop posting misleading information as fact.

The stadium is owned by a company Gellaw Newco 202 Ltd. Gellaw Newco 202 Ltd has one director (guess who?) but that company is actually owned by Gellaw Newco 204 Ltd.  Gellaw Newco 204 Ltd has one director (guess who?) and the shares of the company are in control of one shareholder (l won’t ask you to guess, because I think you will know by now where it is going).

Both Gellaw Newco 202 Ltd and Gellaw Newco 204 Ltd have entered in to security arrangements with MSD on a third party basis. But it is the Football Club in Administration who owes MSD the debt that needs to be repaid (or refinanced or renegotiated at some stage). The Football Club is who has the loan and has also given a charge over its assets to MSD, independent of the security given to MSD by the two Gellaw Companies.

Neither of the Gellaw companies has transferred its ownership in the stadium to MSD under a fixed and floating charge. Yes MSD has an enforceable charge, but they haven’t enforced it. Indeed my understanding is that MSD have been prepared to advance a further sum to the Football Club in Administration in recent months, so I doubt very much that the advance is in current default. The stadium remains in the ownership of Gellaw Newco 202 Ltd, which in turn is ultimately in control of Mel Morris. I have checked these facts against Companies House and District Land Registry records today.

You say: so MSD has total and utter control over the stadium. If it is sold, where does the money go? No, not to MM. It goes to MSD and after that (I think this is right) it has to be used by the company to satisfy creditors, namely the club.  None of this statement is correct. Until MSD enforces it’s security Morris has some control albeit limited. He could however do a few things of importance. Gellaw Newco 202 Ltd could sell the stadium to another unconnected individual or company or to Morris or another company vehicle of Morris’s and MSD would surely agree if the outstanding loan was cleared as part of the sale. Why wouldn’t they? Such a transaction might see Gellaw Newco 202 Ltd sell the stadium at a premium (sale price less costs less MSD repayment). But none of that premium is available to the Football Club creditors. They are a completely different entity. They are not entitled to any of Gellaw’s assets - that is why those companies are not subject to the Administration process. Morris was clever to keep the Gellaw companies stadium owning operations disconnected from the Football Club’s trading operations.

Just one other thing which might be important to know. In Law the MSD debt should in the first place be repaid from any asset realisations of the Football Club. Only if there is a shortfall after that can they exercise a claim against the Gellaw Companies for any shortfall. Morris could waive those third party security rights if he wanted.

So in summary, Morris still ultimately owns the stadium, he still has an element of control and influence over the current administrative proceedings, and he could still own the stadium post administration (or dare I say liquidation). The bloke is a messer, indeed some say a proper duck job, but as matters stand whilst he has lost a load of cash with his gambles to date, he currently has some decent cards in his hands he could play if he wanted to recover at least some of his monies. How he plays his hand in the future we will see.
 

I remember when you used to be funny!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alty_Ram

Alty_Ram

Posted
Posted

Bristol City ?! No ! I was reliably informed that they were paragons of financial virtue whose relentless drive to keep costs at sustainable levels is the only reason that they have not been promoted and as such should all get medals and our thanks. Really, they are an inspiration to us all.

Seriously though, for fans of other clubs who are enjoying our struggles, some of them might like to get their own house in order before getting too smug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevinhectoring

kevinhectoring

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, i-Ram said:

How you see it is incorrect on a great many levels. I will work through it in order for you, so you stop posting misleading information as fact.

The stadium is owned by a company Gellaw Newco 202 Ltd. Gellaw Newco 202 Ltd has one director (guess who?) but that company is actually owned by Gellaw Newco 204 Ltd.  Gellaw Newco 204 Ltd has one director (guess who?) and the shares of the company are in control of one shareholder (l won’t ask you to guess, because I think you will know by now where it is going).

Both Gellaw Newco 202 Ltd and Gellaw Newco 204 Ltd have entered in to security arrangements with MSD on a third party basis. But it is the Football Club in Administration who owes MSD the debt that needs to be repaid (or refinanced or renegotiated at some stage). The Football Club is who has the loan and has also given a charge over its assets to MSD, independent of the security given to MSD by the two Gellaw Companies.

Neither of the Gellaw companies has transferred its ownership in the stadium to MSD under a fixed and floating charge. Yes MSD has an enforceable charge, but they haven’t enforced it. Indeed my understanding is that MSD have been prepared to advance a further sum to the Football Club in Administration in recent months, so I doubt very much that the advance is in current default. The stadium remains in the ownership of Gellaw Newco 202 Ltd, which in turn is ultimately in control of Mel Morris. I have checked these facts against Companies House and District Land Registry records today.

You say: so MSD has total and utter control over the stadium. If it is sold, where does the money go? No, not to MM. It goes to MSD and after that (I think this is right) it has to be used by the company to satisfy creditors, namely the club.  None of this statement is correct. Until MSD enforces it’s security Morris has some control albeit limited. He could however do a few things of importance. Gellaw Newco 202 Ltd could sell the stadium to another unconnected individual or company or to Morris or another company vehicle of Morris’s and MSD would surely agree if the outstanding loan was cleared as part of the sale. Why wouldn’t they? Such a transaction might see Gellaw Newco 202 Ltd sell the stadium at a premium (sale price less costs less MSD repayment). But none of that premium is available to the Football Club creditors. They are a completely different entity. They are not entitled to any of Gellaw’s assets - that is why those companies are not subject to the Administration process. Morris was clever to keep the Gellaw companies stadium owning operations disconnected from the Football Club’s trading operations.

Just one other thing which might be important to know. In Law the MSD debt should in the first place be repaid from any asset realisations of the Football Club. Only if there is a shortfall after that can they exercise a claim against the Gellaw Companies for any shortfall. Morris could waive those third party security rights if he wanted.

So in summary, Morris still ultimately owns the stadium, he still has an element of control and influence over the current administrative proceedings, and he could still own the stadium post administration (or dare I say liquidation). The bloke is a messer, indeed some say a proper duck job, but as matters stand whilst he has lost a load of cash with his gambles to date, he currently has some decent cards in his hands he could play if he wanted to recover at least some of his monies. How he plays his hand in the future we will see.
 

So the MSD deal is not in default ? Why does CK say it is, having spent weeks and weeks up to his elbows in Mel’s mess?  You say the fact MSD lent more shows it’s not in default ? What?!! The most common lenders into ongoing restructurings are existing lenders - for obvious reasons. They typically don’t waive their defaults before lending more, though that depends. 
 

if MSD were not satisfied they have control over the stadium, they would have put 202 into administration wouldn’t they? They would not take the risk of the club and PP being separated, because most (all?) buyers don’t want one without the other.  
 

I’d also venture that if MM embarked on this far fetched scheme to redeem the MSD debt and run off with the stadium, MSD (who of course would be made aware of it) would immediately appoint admins to 202. To ensure no separation. 
 

when you looked at the Land Registry entries, of course you would see 202 is registered owner. But did you not also see a bloody great legal charge registered in favour of MSD ? That’s the problem
 

No we don’t agree at all on this. 

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...