The Administration Thread

[PistoldPete]

1 minute ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

I think if this happens there will be a lot of blowback that could have quite massive consequences for the game and its governance.

You have a Govt looking around for ways to boost its flagging popularity and the EFL could be a handy pinata.

Parry on R5 said last night the EFL weren't happy with the social media 'noise.'

 

If liquidation happens - stand by your beds on that score.

Well I’m unhappy about the mainstream media noise created by birch and co.

[Gaspode]

We’re screwed if we’re relying on Parry to sort things out - his interview on Sky before the game just put all the blame on the Admins for not naming a preferred Bidder - bloke’s a disgrace….

[PistoldPete]

Just now, Gaspode said:

We’re screwed if we’re relying on Parry to sort things out - his interview on Sky before the game just put all the blame on the Admins for not naming a preferred Bidder - bloke’s a disgrace….

We can’t name a preferred bidder because of parry and co.

[gfs1ram]

11 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

If this ends up in a liquidation yes - MSD are at the front of the creditors queue for all income generated from asset sales (although Quantuma fees will need to be paid first). I think it unlikely in a liquidation that any other creditors will get anything. The leases would be come pretty valueless, and the prices offered for our footballing assets would drop away. MSD would be covered though, because if there is any shortfall they go for recovery from Morris and Gellaw under his guarantee and the fixed charge on the stadium.

However, we are all hoping that rather than liquidation, we come out under a CVA or restructuring arrangement, and the Club carries on trading, etc. A CVA is a voluntary arrangement between all the creditors that they will accept a certain pence per pound settlement, and will write off/have no future claim on the remainder debts subject to terms and conditions within the CVA being met and achieved. MSD as a secured creditor would be effectively agreeing to sharing some of the monies that are paid by a new owner for the club, so that other creditors get some return so a CVA (or non CVA restructuring) can be agreed. They will only want to do that if they are happy with the arrangements after the Club is purchased - e.g. they can foresee their loan being serviced, and repaid over an agreed term, and they always retain ample security in place (including the stadium owned by Morris (Gellaw)). 

Ideally I would think MSD would want out; they must be sick to the back teeth being in bed with Morris and DCFC, even at high interest rate return. So I think they would prefer an Ashley type offer of £30m to buy the Club, and £20m to buy the stadium from Morris (Gellaw), and then with Morris (Gellaw) repaying the MSD loan from those proceeds. The £30m Ashley would be paying for the Club only could then exclude any need to account for MSD, and could under say a CVA give a greater pence in the pound return to the other creditors. Note to continue operating as a football club and retaining our golden share, football creditors would have to get 100% repayment. To make sure we don’t get further point deductions from the EFL all other creditors would need to have a minimum return of 25%. The sticking point apparently for Ashley doing this kind of deal though is the EFLs current insistence that Boro and Wycombe’s spurious claims are contingent football creditor debts.

That is quite a simplistic overview, there is much more nuance in the detail.  I have decided not to go into any detail in this note regarding what apparently is Quantuma’s preferred exit route - a restructuring using class cram legislation - because a) I am going to open a beer now and watch the match and b) I think I have answered what you wanted to know. Up the Rams.

Spot on.

At least we seem to have a bidder who has made an offer knowing about the Boro / Wycombe claims and is prepared to take them on and hopefully contest them?  This is great news.

Otherwise despite what Steve, Mr Gibson, Stephen says I am sure he would prefer Derby to be liquidated if only to make Morris have to pay MSD from sale of PP or under his guarantee. ie Personal Vendetta - he wins.

[davenportram]

Just now, PistoldPete said:

We can’t name a preferred bidder because of parry and co.

Not quite True - we can’t name one that is ignoring Wycombe and MFC.

[CBRammette]

1 minute ago, Gaspode said:

We’re screwed if we’re relying on Parry to sort things out - his interview on Sky before the game just put all the blame on the Admins for not naming a preferred Bidder - bloke’s a disgrace….

Totally agreed. Switched him off. Werent we all optimistic and about to announce PB and they pulled plug on it. Cannot say what I think of him as may cause legal difficulties. He is incompetent and confused at best. 

[Mick Brolly]

 

  Good post 

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Mick Brolly

[Oldben]

Efl want us to go to independent arbitration with boro and Wycombe, so they can save face.

Independent arbitration in my opinion will see favour given to boro and Wycombe and would force Derby to accept that their financial claims are valid, when they have zero merit.

A court of law would look at insolvency law, and I think not give merit to boro and Wycombe, if dealt with by a good lawyer acting on derbys behalf.

I have zero reason to trust an independent arbitration panel as in previous instances they've rarely ruled in derbys favour or allowed enough specialists to examine the evidence.

 

 

[Indy]

1 minute ago, Oldben said:

Efl want us to go to independent arbitration with boro and Wycombe, so they can save face.

Independent arbitration in my opinion will see favour given to boro and Wycombe and would force Derby to accept that their financial claims are valid, when they have zero merit.

A court of law would look at insolvency law, and I think not give merit to boro and Wycombe, if dealt with by a good lawyer acting on derbys behalf.

I have zero reason to trust an independent arbitration panel as in previous instances they've rarely ruled in derbys favour or allowed enough specialists to examine the evidence.

 

 

Why can we not cite the finding from the independent panel considering Boro’s attempt to be accepted as an aggrieved party in the stadium valuation case? In it they laid out their whole case about our extra financial clout affecting our strength in the transfer market, disadvantaging them, and leading directly to their financial losses - and that argument was comprehensively dismissed. 

[RoyMac5]

2 hours ago, davenportram said:

Not quite True - we can’t name one that is ignoring Wycombe and MFC.

Or can we? Binnies?

[Mihangel]

Right, back to the fun stuff!

[BuckoBeast]

This is way more important 

[rustylee]

I think the concern for those looking to take Derby over is that any arbitration panel would be appointed by the efl so probably not independent.

[StaffsRam]

7 minutes ago, Oldben said:

Efl want us to go to independent arbitration with boro and Wycombe, so they can save face.

Independent arbitration in my opinion will see favour given to boro and Wycombe and would force Derby to accept that their financial claims are valid, when they have zero merit.

A court of law would look at insolvency law, and I think not give merit to boro and Wycombe, if dealt with by a good lawyer acting on derbys behalf.

I have zero reason to trust an independent arbitration panel as in previous instances they've rarely ruled in derbys favour or allowed enough specialists to examine the evidence.

File a claim against QPR at the same time. If arbitration finds for MFC against us then it’ll find for us against QPR.

[Half Fan Half Biscuit]

6 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Or can we? Binnies?

Can’t see anything on the Club’s site about this Binnie bid. Is it officially accepted and they’ve moved to preferred bidder status?

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

I hope Parry stands on a plug, pin side up, when he next gets out of bed.

[duncanjwitham]

6 minutes ago, StaffsRam said:

File a claim against QPR at the same time. If arbitration finds for MFC against us then it’ll find for us against QPR.

Not just QPR. If we get taken over with the arbitration still to come, I would immediately file claims against literally everyone we could possibly have the slightest grievance with - QPR, Villa, Bournemouth, Leicester, anyone.  Tell those clubs that we will drop those claims the second we are cleared over 'Boro and Wycombe, but if we aren't cleared, we will have no choice but to proceed. Make it crystal clear to the LAP what the consequences of allowing those decisions would be. 

[PistoldPete]

2 hours ago, davenportram said:

Not quite True - we can’t name one that is ignoring Wycombe and MFC.

They're not ignoring them, they are just saying the claims do not survive an administration process .. so they are irrelevant to the buyers. .  

[G STAR RAM]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

We can’t name a preferred bidder because of parry and co.

Why?

Nobody can stop the administrators from naming a preferred bidder.

[MackworthRamIsGod]

18 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Or can we? Binnies?

From Rooneys interview on Radio Derby, I'd imagine the Binnie bid isn't all that serious, certainly not serious enough for Rooney to know anything about it.

I'll just edit that to say, of course Rooney will know something about it, but rather than say "yes it's positive that someone has bidded", it more comes across as Rooney doesn't quite believe it.

Edited January 22, 2022 by MackworthRamIsGod