The Administration Thread

[duncanjwitham]

1 hour ago, StrawHillRam said:

Q must not be in a position to  choose between one or other of the bids that give the best return for creditors or liquidate us  if neither of the bids aren’t enough enough to satisfy creditors.

 Can’t be that hard.

I think if it was a simple case of who was offering the most cash, we'd have had a decision made by now.  Obviously, there's still a chance there's a game of brinkmanship going on, with Quantuma trying to push up the price and the bidders holding on for a last minute bargain etc. 

But I think the most likely issue is that there's a query of some sort with one or more of the bids that are making Quantuma unsure as to which is the best.  Ed Dawes mentioned on Radio Derby last week (I think it was Ed anyway), that Appleby's original financer had dropped out, but he'd got someone else in instead.  If Quantuma are having to re-do all of their due diligence on their source of finance, that could delay things.  Or if they think the new guy is risky for some reason, they might prefer to go for say a lower Ashley bid because it's safer (i.e. they don't want a fake sheikh situation where they agree a bid and the money never turns up).  There are any number of other potential reasons too - if one bid is for more, but over a longer period of time, that could cause issues if creditors prefer one or the other, for example.

It's naïve to think that the bids are just bits of paper with a single number written on them, that you can do a simple comparison on.

[Ellafella]

9 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

You keep insisting on roping the EFL or Covid or yada yada into the mess which Morris has orchestrated. 

 

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

and Ed Dawes sad it might be “up to “ 15 points… where he gets his info from I don’t know. It really doesn’t help that none of this is published. 

Certainly agree

[JoetheRam]

We ain't gonna be liquidated.

Contrary to popular belief, the term too big to fail was actually first made in reference to mid-size second tier football clubs rather than JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs in 2008.

[RipleyRich]

6 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I think if it was a simple case of who was offering the most cash, we'd have had a decision made by now.  Obviously, there's still a chance there's a game of brinkmanship going on, with Quantuma trying to push up the price and the bidders holding on for a last minute bargain etc. 

But I think the most likely issue is that there's a query of some sort with one or more of the bids that are making Quantuma unsure as to which is the best.  Ed Dawes mentioned on Radio Derby last week (I think it was Ed anyway), that Appleby's original financer had dropped out, but he'd got someone else in instead.  If Quantuma are having to re-do all of their due diligence on their source of finance, that could delay things.  Or if they think the new guy is risky for some reason, they might prefer to go for say a lower Ashley bid because it's safer (i.e. they don't want a fake sheikh situation where they agree a bid and the money never turns up).  There are any number of other potential reasons too - if one bid is for more, but over a longer period of time, that could cause issues if creditors prefer one or the other, for example.

It's naïve to think that the bids are just bits of paper with a single number written on them, that you can do a simple comparison on.

Appleby`s bid has always bothered me. Out of the known bidders, he is the one who probably has the Club in his heart, but doesn`t have the cash. Any investor backing him will be purely looking at a business transaction and will not be risking their cash. So either the cash will be limited, or will have massive securities against it in one form or another. Also what cash is available to take the club forward after purchase? For me it just doesn`t appear a viable bid given the clubs circumstances.

As for MA. Well, we know he has no love for the club. Its an out and out business transaction, and if the numbers don`t stack up, it won`t happen. He will definitely not take the club without the stadium IMO. He sold off assets at Newcastle and I am certain he would want the same opportunities at Derby.

I genuinely think we are now well into squeeky bum time.

[Gaspode]

1 hour ago, one_chop said:

I think everyone has to accept that liquidation is now an almost certainty. Lot's of posters have said it in recent day's and bizarrely haven't been given any stick for stating it, that vitriol has been reserved for a miserable sod like me.

For what it's worth has no-one stopped to consider that Mel is ill and is practically skint in terms of liquid cash, I very much doubt he could gift the stadium back to the club even if he wanted to.

yet again you quote 'facts' that are no more than guesswork on your part - that (along with your insistence on repreatedly posting the most negative comments) is why you get stick.....

[strawhillram]

11 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I think if it was a simple case of who was offering the most cash, we'd have had a decision made by now.  Obviously, there's still a chance there's a game of brinkmanship going on, with Quantuma trying to push up the price and the bidders holding on for a last minute bargain etc. 

But I think the most likely issue is that there's a query of some sort with one or more of the bids that are making Quantuma unsure as to which is the best.  Ed Dawes mentioned on Radio Derby last week (I think it was Ed anyway), that Appleby's original financer had dropped out, but he'd got someone else in instead.  If Quantuma are having to re-do all of their due diligence on their source of finance, that could delay things.  Or if they think the new guy is risky for some reason, they might prefer to go for say a lower Ashley bid because it's safer (i.e. they don't want a fake sheikh situation where they agree a bid and the money never turns up).  There are any number of other potential reasons too - if one bid is for more, but over a longer period of time, that could cause issues if creditors prefer one or the other, for example.

It's naïve to think that the bids are just bits of paper with a single number written on them, that you can do a simple comparison on.

They should have already done a 10 year cash flow analysis to evaluate the pros and cons of each bid v liquidation. 
they can’t keep negotiating forever in the hope that something improves, more likely bidders will call it a day

[RipleyRich]

2 minutes ago, JoetheRam said:

We ain't gonna be liquidated.

Contrary to popular belief, the term too big to fail was actually first made in reference to mid-size second tier football clubs rather than JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs in 2008.

They said that about Rangers.

Ultimately they were too big for the SFA to allow them to drop out of their revenue stream. Are Derby too big for the EFL to lose?

[Curtains]

Just now, RipleyRich said:

They said that about Rangers.

Ultimately they were too big for the SFA to allow them to drop out of their revenue stream. Are Derby too big for the EFL to lose?

Yes 

[RipleyRich]

3 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Yes 

I wish I shared your optimism.

There are only 2 Clubs that matter in Scotland. Losing Rangers from their system would have killed Scottish Football and ultimately forced Celtic to apply to the English Leagues.

I`m not sure the EFL have that concern where Derby is concerned.

Unfortunately Derby County would only be missed by Derby County Fans ....................and Forest Fans.

[kevinhectoring]

9 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I think if it was a simple case of who was offering the most cash, we'd have had a decision made by now.  Obviously, there's still a chance there's a game of brinkmanship going on, with Quantuma trying to push up the price and the bidders holding on for a last minute bargain etc. 

But I think the most likely issue is that there's a query of some sort with one or more of the bids that are making Quantuma unsure as to which is the best.  Ed Dawes mentioned on Radio Derby last week (I think it was Ed anyway), that Appleby's original financer had dropped out, but he'd got someone else in instead.  If Quantuma are having to re-do all of their due diligence on their source of finance, that could delay things.  Or if they think the new guy is risky for some reason, they might prefer to go for say a lower Ashley bid because it's safer (i.e. they don't want a fake sheikh situation where they agree a bid and the money never turns up).  There are any number of other potential reasons too - if one bid is for more, but over a longer period of time, that could cause issues if creditors prefer one or the other, for example.

It's naïve to think that the bids are just bits of paper with a single number written on them, that you can do a simple comparison on.

I think Q used this last bidding round to get everyone on the same page. So I’d think the most likely reason for more delay is as reported - there’s not a bid that clears the bar.
Also quite possible that one or more bidders said their bid was conditional on getting the stadium and no points deduction. That’s helpful in a way : if MM is intent on avoiding liquidation, it forces him to agree some sort of a deal 

still hopeful he will help Q get a deal over the line 

[Curtains]

Just now, RipleyRich said:

I wish I shared your optimism.

There are only 2 Clubs that matter in Scotland. Losing Rangers from their system would have killed Scottish Football and ultimately forced Celtic to apply to the English Leagues.

I`m not sure the EFL have that concern where Derby is concerned.

Unfortunately Derby County would only be missed by Derby County Fans ....................and Forest Fans.

I’d be worried if we didn’t have people interested in buying the club but we do .

It’s just a saying about too big to lose but think what the ramifications for the EFL would be they would be forever tainted 

[one_chop]

13 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

yet again you quote 'facts' that are no more than guesswork on your part - that (along with your insistence on repreatedly posting the most negative comments) is why you get stick.....

Who says it's guesswork?

[Gaspode]

Just now, one_chop said:

Who says it's guesswork?

Unless you have some proof (which you clearly don't unless you are Mel, his doctor or his accountant) then it's guesswork.....

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, one_chop said:

For what it's worth has no-one stopped to consider that Mel is ill and is practically skint in terms of liquid cash, I very much doubt he could gift the stadium back to the club even if he wanted to.

Not so sure. It’s been reported he’s personally guaranteed 20 of MSD’s loan and that he’s put a cash deposit offshore backing his guarantee. If that’s right, not only does he have the cash, it’s already held by MSD 

[May Contain Nuts]

4 minutes ago, Curtains said:

I’d be worried if we didn’t have people interested in buying the club but we do .

For now.

[duncanjwitham]

Just now, kevinhectoring said:

Not so sure. It’s been reported he’s personally guaranteed 20 of MSD’s loan and that he’s put a cash deposit offshore backing his guarantee. If that’s right, not only does he have the cash, it’s already held by MSD 

Has that been reported anywhere credible?  I've not seen any reputable media sources saying anything other than that he's made "personal guarantees", including the stadium, and possibly other property.

[Curtains]

2 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

For now.

Mate most of this forum thought Derby would be ok .

Was it all false optimism or miscalculation!

[RipleyRich]

10 minutes ago, Curtains said:

I’d be worried if we didn’t have people interested in buying the club but we do .

It’s just a saying about too big to lose but think what the ramifications for the EFL would be they would be forever tainted 

Would they though?

As far as the EFL and fans of every other club are concerned, it`s all due to MM`s mismanagement of the club.

[Oldben]

31 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I think if it was a simple case of who was offering the most cash, we'd have had a decision made by now.  Obviously, there's still a chance there's a game of brinkmanship going on, with Quantuma trying to push up the price and the bidders holding on for a last minute bargain etc. 

But I think the most likely issue is that there's a query of some sort with one or more of the bids that are making Quantuma unsure as to which is the best.  Ed Dawes mentioned on Radio Derby last week (I think it was Ed anyway), that Appleby's original financer had dropped out, but he'd got someone else in instead.  If Quantuma are having to re-do all of their due diligence on their source of finance, that could delay things.  Or if they think the new guy is risky for some reason, they might prefer to go for say a lower Ashley bid because it's safer (i.e. they don't want a fake sheikh situation where they agree a bid and the money never turns up).  There are any number of other potential reasons too - if one bid is for more, but over a longer period of time, that could cause issues if creditors prefer one or the other, for example.

It's naïve to think that the bids are just bits of paper with a single number written on them, that you can do a simple comparison on.

There are two bids, none come close to pb status due to stadium cost.

One is likely to be from Ashley and the other Appleby (with new American financing).

In any case if Mm gave pride park for free, then the deals done.

If the bidders agree to ignore pride Park and rent another ground, then the deal might be done.