The Administration Thread

[DJAY]

11 minutes ago, Boycie said:

You didn’t ought to put his planes registration on here as someone might clone it on false plates and be involved in a house burglary or something.

Yeah you're right, it would be something a certain Mr. Marinakis would do in order to disguise his involvement in a house firebombing or 'fly-by' shooting.

[B4ev6is]

3 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

He will only play in yellow.

Does not mean that he had signed one does it.

[Boycie]

7 minutes ago, DJAY said:

Yeah you're right, it would be something a certain Mr. Marinakis would do in order to disguise his involvement in a house firebombing or 'fly-by' shooting.

That’s how easy it is, I think Putin calls it a false blag incident.

[CornwallRam]

I can't quite grasp the 25%/35% thing - the numbers don't really seem to stack up.

 

Do HMRC count as an unsecured creditor for EFL policy purposes? I know they are a preferential creditor, but they don't have any actual security, so I'd say they do, but either way, I still think I'm missing something.

 

Now these are obviously very ball parky numbers, and assuming it doesn't include the stadium of the £17.5m MSD loan - 

 

Football creditors - £6m

Quantuma £3m

Post admin loan £5m

 

So £14m to be paid upfront in every scenario.

 

HMRC £28m

Unsecured creditors £8m

 

HMRC as an unsecured creditor = £36m so £9m for 25% or £12.6 for 35%...or £3.6m for 10%

 

Which puts the bid at -

 

points deduction = £17.6m

No points deduction = £23m/£26.6m

 

But we're told that the bid is over £25m, so that would be no points deduction

 

From that, it looks likely that HMRC are not an unsecured creditor and have demanded a higher figure - which should be no surprise.

 

Working backwards from £25m and taking the quoted 10% figure for the unsecured creditors

 

25-14-.8=10.2 for HMRC - about 36% on very shaky figures, but plausible

 

But if we then add that back in we get

 

£25m gets a points deduction

£26.2m gives 25% to the unsecured creditors with no points deduction.

 

Is £1.2m worth losing 15 points for in any logical scenario? My point is that if HMRC are an unsecured creditor, the numbers to avoid a points deduction look pretty low. If HMRC are not, then the unsecured creditor figure is itself low and the difference between a points deduction and not is pocket change for anyone who owns a private jet.

 

Now, the most likely thing here is that I’m missing something obvious, and I’ll be grateful if someone can point the flaw in my logic. If not, either the figures from the journalists are wrong, or there is something that I’m missing – maybe Mel’s soft loans? Maybe the MSD stadium loan?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rev]

23 minutes ago, Boycie said:

That’s how easy it is, I think Putin calls it a false blag incident.

I saw the same documentary.

Lootin' with Putin, I think it was called.

[StarterForTen]

25 minutes ago, Rev said:

I saw the same documentary.

Lootin' with Putin, I think it was called.

That's the sequel. First up was 'Putin puts the boot in'

[I know nuffin]

19 hours ago, europia said:

Spot on with that observation ?

No it is broken. ATC turned it on s bit of runway too narrow and it looked like it bent the front wheel. Said it won't be fixed until he returned from Derby. Hope today he did not come in a German plane today as there was a spitfire circling East Midlands about 1pm!

[RipleyRich]

34 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I can't quite grasp the 25%/35% thing - the numbers don't really seem to stack up.

 

Do HMRC count as an unsecured creditor for EFL policy purposes? I know they are a preferential creditor, but they don't have any actual security, so I'd say they do, but either way, I still think I'm missing something.

 

Now these are obviously very ball parky numbers, and assuming it doesn't include the stadium of the £17.5m MSD loan - 

 

Football creditors - £6m

Quantuma £3m

Post admin loan £5m

 

So £14m to be paid upfront in every scenario.

 

HMRC £28m

Unsecured creditors £8m

 

HMRC as an unsecured creditor = £36m so £9m for 25% or £12.6 for 35%...or £3.6m for 10%

 

Which puts the bid at -

 

points deduction = £17.6m

No points deduction = £23m/£26.6m

 

But we're told that the bid is over £25m, so that would be no points deduction

 

From that, it looks likely that HMRC are not an unsecured creditor and have demanded a higher figure - which should be no surprise.

 

Working backwards from £25m and taking the quoted 10% figure for the unsecured creditors

 

25-14-.8=10.2 for HMRC - about 36% on very shaky figures, but plausible

 

But if we then add that back in we get

 

£25m gets a points deduction

£26.2m gives 25% to the unsecured creditors with no points deduction.

 

Is £1.2m worth losing 15 points for in any logical scenario? My point is that if HMRC are an unsecured creditor, the numbers to avoid a points deduction look pretty low. If HMRC are not, then the unsecured creditor figure is itself low and the difference between a points deduction and not is pocket change for anyone who owns a private jet.

 

Now, the most likely thing here is that I’m missing something obvious, and I’ll be grateful if someone can point the flaw in my logic. If not, either the figures from the journalists are wrong, or there is something that I’m missing – maybe Mel’s soft loans? Maybe the MSD stadium loan?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm still not getting why anyone would pay c£30m for effectively nothing.

I am starting to wonder if CKs proposal is 35% over 3 years. He would obviously pay some up front but not the full amount.

Would that allow 2 things:

1. The club ends up funding the bulk of 35%

2. Does that allow enough of CKs £30m to secure the stadium

[I know nuffin]

38 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I can't quite grasp the 25%/35% thing - the numbers don't really seem to stack up.

 

Do HMRC count as an unsecured creditor for EFL policy purposes? I know they are a preferential creditor, but they don't have any actual security, so I'd say they do, but either way, I still think I'm missing something.

 

Now these are obviously very ball parky numbers, and assuming it doesn't include the stadium of the £17.5m MSD loan - 

 

Football creditors - £6m

Quantuma £3m

Post admin loan £5m

 

So £14m to be paid upfront in every scenario.

 

HMRC £28m

Unsecured creditors £8m

 

HMRC as an unsecured creditor = £36m so £9m for 25% or £12.6 for 35%...or £3.6m for 10%

 

Which puts the bid at -

 

points deduction = £17.6m

No points deduction = £23m/£26.6m

 

But we're told that the bid is over £25m, so that would be no points deduction

 

From that, it looks likely that HMRC are not an unsecured creditor and have demanded a higher figure - which should be no surprise.

 

Working backwards from £25m and taking the quoted 10% figure for the unsecured creditors

 

25-14-.8=10.2 for HMRC - about 36% on very shaky figures, but plausible

 

But if we then add that back in we get

 

£25m gets a points deduction

£26.2m gives 25% to the unsecured creditors with no points deduction.

 

Is £1.2m worth losing 15 points for in any logical scenario? My point is that if HMRC are an unsecured creditor, the numbers to avoid a points deduction look pretty low. If HMRC are not, then the unsecured creditor figure is itself low and the difference between a points deduction and not is pocket change for anyone who owns a private jet.

 

Now, the most likely thing here is that I’m missing something obvious, and I’ll be grateful if someone can point the flaw in my logic. If not, either the figures from the journalists are wrong, or there is something that I’m missing – maybe Mel’s soft loans? Maybe the MSD stadium loan?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Journalists get something wrong - never!

[RadioactiveWaste]

32 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I can't quite grasp the 25%/35% thing - the numbers don't really seem to stack up.

 

Do HMRC count as an unsecured creditor for EFL policy purposes? I know they are a preferential creditor, but they don't have any actual security, so I'd say they do, but either way, I still think I'm missing something.

 

Now these are obviously very ball parky numbers, and assuming it doesn't include the stadium of the £17.5m MSD loan - 

 

Football creditors - £6m

Quantuma £3m

Post admin loan £5m

 

So £14m to be paid upfront in every scenario.

 

HMRC £28m

Unsecured creditors £8m

 

HMRC as an unsecured creditor = £36m so £9m for 25% or £12.6 for 35%...or £3.6m for 10%

 

Which puts the bid at -

 

points deduction = £17.6m

No points deduction = £23m/£26.6m

 

But we're told that the bid is over £25m, so that would be no points deduction

 

From that, it looks likely that HMRC are not an unsecured creditor and have demanded a higher figure - which should be no surprise.

 

Working backwards from £25m and taking the quoted 10% figure for the unsecured creditors

 

25-14-.8=10.2 for HMRC - about 36% on very shaky figures, but plausible

 

But if we then add that back in we get

 

£25m gets a points deduction

£26.2m gives 25% to the unsecured creditors with no points deduction.

 

Is £1.2m worth losing 15 points for in any logical scenario? My point is that if HMRC are an unsecured creditor, the numbers to avoid a points deduction look pretty low. If HMRC are not, then the unsecured creditor figure is itself low and the difference between a points deduction and not is pocket change for anyone who owns a private jet.

 

Now, the most likely thing here is that I’m missing something obvious, and I’ll be grateful if someone can point the flaw in my logic. If not, either the figures from the journalists are wrong, or there is something that I’m missing – maybe Mel’s soft loans? Maybe the MSD stadium loan?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HMRC aren't secured creditor, however in our case they're a highly influential one.

A lot depends on what they're willing to accept (and under what terms).

I'm pretty sure the 35p over 3 years is an attractive option for cK as it probably leaves more room for negotiation over how the initial cost of exiting administration shakes out as apparently the current state of play doesn't satisfy HMRC and give non secured creditors 25p - yes there's additional costs in year 2 and 3 settling the monies to unsecured creditors but *hopefully* they're manageable costs that won't burden the club excessively. Obviously if the offer is 35pbover 3 years, getting that agreed and how much is up front is a negotiation in itself (and I would guess it's not necessary in even payments).

Obviously, 25p to unsecured creditors and the debts not lingering on would be preferable.

[Ghost of Clough]

38 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I can't quite grasp the 25%/35% thing - the numbers don't really seem to stack up.

 

Do HMRC count as an unsecured creditor for EFL policy purposes? I know they are a preferential creditor, but they don't have any actual security, so I'd say they do, but either way, I still think I'm missing something.

 

Now these are obviously very ball parky numbers, and assuming it doesn't include the stadium of the £17.5m MSD loan - 

 

Football creditors - £6m

Quantuma £3m

Post admin loan £5m

 

So £14m to be paid upfront in every scenario.

 

HMRC £28m

Unsecured creditors £8m

 

HMRC as an unsecured creditor = £36m so £9m for 25% or £12.6 for 35%...or £3.6m for 10%

 

Which puts the bid at -

 

points deduction = £17.6m

No points deduction = £23m/£26.6m

 

But we're told that the bid is over £25m, so that would be no points deduction

 

From that, it looks likely that HMRC are not an unsecured creditor and have demanded a higher figure - which should be no surprise.

 

Working backwards from £25m and taking the quoted 10% figure for the unsecured creditors

 

25-14-.8=10.2 for HMRC - about 36% on very shaky figures, but plausible

 

But if we then add that back in we get

 

£25m gets a points deduction

£26.2m gives 25% to the unsecured creditors with no points deduction.

 

Is £1.2m worth losing 15 points for in any logical scenario? My point is that if HMRC are an unsecured creditor, the numbers to avoid a points deduction look pretty low. If HMRC are not, then the unsecured creditor figure is itself low and the difference between a points deduction and not is pocket change for anyone who owns a private jet.

 

Now, the most likely thing here is that I’m missing something obvious, and I’ll be grateful if someone can point the flaw in my logic. If not, either the figures from the journalists are wrong, or there is something that I’m missing – maybe Mel’s soft loans? Maybe the MSD stadium loan?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We don't know how much HMRC are demanding. Maybe it's 50%, leaving all other creditors with the rest.

Using your figures:
100% at £14m
Plus 50% of HMRC's £28m = £14m
And 25% of unsecured creditors' £8m = £2m

Takes the total to avoid a deduction to £30m

[Boycie]

1 hour ago, B4ev6is said:

Does not mean that he had signed one does it.

I’m sorry mate ?

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/chris-martin-bristol-city-contract-6820015

[CornwallRam]

22 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

We don't know how much HMRC are demanding. Maybe it's 50%, leaving all other creditors with the rest.

Using your figures:
100% at £14m
Plus 50% of HMRC's £28m = £14m
And 25% of unsecured creditors' £8m = £2m

Takes the total to avoid a deduction to £30m

But even if HMRC want £14m, or even £28m the difference between paying the unsecured creditors 10% or 25% is still £1.2m if we owe £8m or £2.2m if we owe as much as £12m

We just don't owe that much to unsecured creditors, which makes the points deduction thing a red herring. I can easily see us failing to agree a figure with HMRC and getting liquidated. I can see HMRC wanting a big percentage and us not getting a bid to retain the golden ticket and going phoenix. However, I cannot fathom how we could get a bid sufficient to clear those hurdles, but not be able to find the last £1.2m-£2.2m.

[B4ev6is]

3 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

But even if HMRC want £14m, or even £28m the difference between paying the unsecured creditors 10% or 25% is still £1.2m if we owe £8m or £2.2m if we owe as much as £12m

We just don't owe that much to unsecured creditors, which makes the points deduction thing a red herring. I can easily see us failing to agree a figure with HMRC and getting liquidated. I can see HMRC wanting a big percentage and us not getting a bid to retain the golden ticket and going phoenix. However, I cannot fathom how we could get a bid sufficient to clear those hurdles, but not be able to find the last £1.2m-£2.2m.

I think we shall keep golden ticket and then will remain as derby county 

[RoyMac5]

51 minutes ago, Boycie said:

I’m sorry mate ?

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/chris-martin-bristol-city-contract-6820015

Wayne will find a better replacement if he's allowed a decent transfer market spree.

[Ewe Ram]

Sorry if I’m being a bit dim, but has something happened to make Brum fans believe they’re about to go into administration? 

[davenportram]

2 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

I can't quite grasp the 25%/35% thing - the numbers don't really seem to stack up.

 

Do HMRC count as an unsecured creditor for EFL policy purposes? I know they are a preferential creditor, but they don't have any actual security, so I'd say they do, but either way, I still think I'm missing something.

 

Now these are obviously very ball parky numbers, and assuming it doesn't include the stadium of the £17.5m MSD loan - 

 

Football creditors - £6m

Quantuma £3m

Post admin loan £5m

 

So £14m to be paid upfront in every scenario.

 

HMRC £28m

Unsecured creditors £8m

 

HMRC as an unsecured creditor = £36m so £9m for 25% or £12.6 for 35%...or £3.6m for 10%

 

Which puts the bid at -

 

points deduction = £17.6m

No points deduction = £23m/£26.6m

 

But we're told that the bid is over £25m, so that would be no points deduction

 

From that, it looks likely that HMRC are not an unsecured creditor and have demanded a higher figure - which should be no surprise.

 

Working backwards from £25m and taking the quoted 10% figure for the unsecured creditors

 

25-14-.8=10.2 for HMRC - about 36% on very shaky figures, but plausible

 

But if we then add that back in we get

 

£25m gets a points deduction

£26.2m gives 25% to the unsecured creditors with no points deduction.

 

Is £1.2m worth losing 15 points for in any logical scenario? My point is that if HMRC are an unsecured creditor, the numbers to avoid a points deduction look pretty low. If HMRC are not, then the unsecured creditor figure is itself low and the difference between a points deduction and not is pocket change for anyone who owns a private jet.

 

Now, the most likely thing here is that I’m missing something obvious, and I’ll be grateful if someone can point the flaw in my logic. If not, either the figures from the journalists are wrong, or there is something that I’m missing – maybe Mel’s soft loans? Maybe the MSD stadium loan?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or with the payment plan only the first year come from the bid itself the following two years comes from other funds? In that case the amount could be 5% in year 1 15% in years two and three. Vastly reducing the amount needed to come out of the purchase bid

[Mostyn6]

10 minutes ago, Ewe Ram said:

Sorry if I’m being a bit dim, but has something happened to make Brum fans believe they’re about to go into administration? 

Released their accounts and they’re in dire situation. 

[curb]

9 minutes ago, Ewe Ram said:

Sorry if I’m being a bit dim, but has something happened to make Brum fans believe they’re about to go into administration? 

It’s a bit strange, yes they owe a lot of money to their owners, but then so do about 50% of championship clubs.

TBH, most clubs should be concerned when it gets to that stage, and we should have, but every one else just makes excuses for it. Maybe there’s some reason why they don’t trust their owners?

[Van der MoodHoover]

3 hours ago, Boycie said:

Which one of those ids is you @Boycie??