The Administration Thread

[Gritstone Tup]

10 hours ago, RAM1966 said:

The EFL did allude to allowing us entry in Lg2.....  Unless of course you know better than Parry, who mentioned this as an olive branch if we could not get someone to sort out Mels mess....

Not having that sorry! Absolutely no chance that would happen. All other dissolved clubs would have a cast iron case against EFL.

[jimtastic56]

3 hours ago, SamUltraRam said:

One thing that I 'think' is positive is this :

When does the 2022 summer transfer window open for EFL clubs? The 2022 summer transfer window for EFL clubs is expected to run over the same course as the Premier League. That means the window for EFL clubs will open on June 10 and will close at 11 pm on September 1

As long as players don't agree deals elsewhere before then of course.

One big issue with our out of contract players is that they can often agree higher salaries elsewhere because the new club doesn't have to pay a transfer fee - so can we compete with that, especially if the EFL impose salary restrictions on us in the business plan?

Will those players agents be thinking about what's best for their players career development under Rooney, or about their percentage cut of their players salary elsewhere ?

Players out of contract have been talking to other clubs since January . I would imagine most are fixed up by now. Wayne has said he has not been able to offer anything.Agents work on percentages so it’s like an auction. There will be a few tears at full time tomorrow on all sides , but new heroes will arrive.

[duncanjwitham]

8 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

Players out of contract have been talking to other clubs since January . I would imagine most are fixed up by now. Wayne has said he has not been able to offer anything.Agents work on percentages so it’s like an auction. There will be a few tears at full time tomorrow on all sides , but new heroes will arrive.

Only to foreign clubs, unless we've given them permission to negotiate a deal.  I can't remember the exact rules for English clubs, but we've got until something like the 3rd Thursday in May to offer a contract, then there's a fixed period where the player can decide to accept or not. And only then can they talk to other English clubs.  If we hit whatever that date is in May and are still under embargo, then presumably we cannot offer contracts, and they can start negotiating elsewhere.  But we definitely aren't there yet.

[PistoldPete]

23 minutes ago, nottingram said:

I appreciate it is far from an ideal situation but I would hope most people would recognise that if we do end up playing at Stoke or Leicester (and I don’t think for a minute that we will) that boycotting it would be punishing all of the wrong people.

Obviously there will be some who physically cannot get to those places but hopefully anyone who can still would.

I’m not boycotting stoke or Leicester. I just don’t travel to away games anyway. It’s a daft idea with no benefit, only extra costs for fans that do go and lost revenue for the club. 

[Dan_Ram]

I'm putting bits together here so maybe jumping to conclusions but:

I read MA's team are still 'working in the background. Obviously the admin wont communicate with him due to CK preferred bidder status', so I would assume the only other person he could have been talking with would be MM (we know they have a much more amicable relationship than MM>CK). Also, various sources advised MM wants Ashley over Kirchner to buy the stadium.

Is it the case that Ashley will pay more for the stadium but less to creditors (hence not gaining PB status from admin)?

Is Ashley in MMs ear to refuse to sell the stadium so that CKs preferred bidder status expires, he pulls out, leaving Admin no choice but to accept the lower offer on behalf of creditors?

Would people prefer a council owned/rented stadium but start next season on 0 points (CK), or would you prefer MA to own the club & stadium but start next year on -15 due to paying less than 35p in the pound?

[Gritstone Tup]

2 hours ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Should we be asking questions of team Derby? I think it was them who instigated the proposal for the council to buy the stadium. It would be good to hear an update from their spokesman today.

They’ve got their votes now, don’t expect to hear much from them

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

1 hour ago, Oldben said:

Det suggests a solution to the stadium, might be a ground share with Stoke or Leicester.

I like that idea.

It would leave mm with a stadium he can't get much money for or rent.

Who would would rent pride Park if it wasn't used by a football stadium, and knocking down pride Park to building housing would cost to much.

 

Who would like that idea? Just to spite Morris? Insane. Hate groundshare option - watch crowds plummet. Look at Coventry fiasco. 

[strawhillram]

21 minutes ago, Dan_Ram said:

I'm putting bits together here so maybe jumping to conclusions but:

I read MA's team are still 'working in the background. Obviously the admin wont communicate with him due to CK preferred bidder status', so I would assume the only other person he could have been talking with would be MM (we know they have a much more amicable relationship than MM>CK). Also, various sources advised MM wants Ashley over Kirchner to buy the stadium.

Is it the case that Ashley will pay more for the stadium but less to creditors (hence not gaining PB status from admin)?

Is Ashley in MMs ear to refuse to sell the stadium so that CKs preferred bidder status expires, he pulls out, leaving Admin no choice but to accept the lower offer on behalf of creditors?

Would people prefer a council owned/rented stadium but start next season on 0 points (CK), or would you prefer MA to own the club & stadium but start next year on -15 due to paying less than 35p in the pound?

Prefer CK

[angieram]

10 minutes ago, Gritstone Tup said:

They’ve got their votes now, don’t expect to hear much from them

The leader of the council has already given an interview on Radio Derby this morning, which the BBC have reported fully, so that comment is rather unnecessary. 

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

56 minutes ago, Gritstone Tup said:

Not having that sorry! Absolutely no chance that would happen. All other dissolved clubs would have a cast iron case against EFL.

Dissolved clubs don’t exist anymore ! I doubt it would happen but stranger things could happen. Probably end up applying to conference. There are 23 teams there, space for an extra one? 

[DavesaRam]

14 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

I saw at least 4 Gypsy Petulengro's over the weekend dotted around Blackpool. Unless you have a consensus from all of them I'm calling fake news.

Hello. Fake News here. How can I help you?

[FlyBritishMidland]

34 minutes ago, Dan_Ram said:

I'm putting bits together here so maybe jumping to conclusions but:

I read MA's team are still 'working in the background. Obviously the admin wont communicate with him due to CK preferred bidder status', so I would assume the only other person he could have been talking with would be MM (we know they have a much more amicable relationship than MM>CK). Also, various sources advised MM wants Ashley over Kirchner to buy the stadium.

Is it the case that Ashley will pay more for the stadium but less to creditors (hence not gaining PB status from admin)?

Is Ashley in MMs ear to refuse to sell the stadium so that CKs preferred bidder status expires, he pulls out, leaving Admin no choice but to accept the lower offer on behalf of creditors?

Would people prefer a council owned/rented stadium but start next season on 0 points (CK), or would you prefer MA to own the club & stadium but start next year on -15 due to paying less than 35p in the pound?

Sounds sensible.  I’d prefer CK over MA every day of the week.  I don’t think it’s a bad idea that the stadium stays in council ownership.  They will get a steady income stream over a long term lease and it protects the club and the fans from anything like this happening again.

I think the deal will be done with CK.  If it doesn’t happen in the next few days I don’t expect MA to come in straight away.  He’ll wait as long as possible as it’s what he does.  And his bid for the club will be vastly lower giving -15 points as you say.

From what CK has said, I think him and his team will do what’s best for the club if they takeover.  If MA swoops, he’ll do what’s best for MA.  Better than no club though.

[BramcoteRam84]

1 hour ago, RedSox said:

This made me a tad more confident that a deal will be done:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61347206?at_campaign=64&at_custom1=link&at_custom4=482DECDA-CD2A-11EC-8A9B-CCA931EBDC67&at_custom3=Regional+BBC+East+Midlands&at_custom2=twitter&at_medium=custom7

DCC in discussions about potentially buying the stadium.

 

I’m a lot more confident after reading that. Implies the parties are moving towards a pragmatic conclusion, e.g. if they can draw up and agree a set of principles around the stadium regarding a future purchase from the council then that’s probably the best that can be done at this stage.

Its clearly close and the rhetoric from CK this week is purely negotiation tactics to move things forward on the stadium, as well as what Simon Jordan was saying this lunchtime in they are holding Mel’s feet to the fire pushing him to do something. 

[B4ev6is]

I am hoping that we might hear something in next few hours and I hope efl will let kircher to compelte the take over.

So rooney can final start offering new contracts.

[Gaspode]

30 minutes ago, angieram said:

The leader of the council has already given an interview on Radio Derby this morning, which the BBC have reported fully, so that comment is rather unnecessary. 

Absolutely unnecessary @angieram, but somehow not at all surprising from that particular poster…..☹️

[Jimmy Skitz]

2 hours ago, Oldben said:

Det suggests a solution to the stadium, might be a ground share with Stoke or Leicester.

I like that idea.

It would leave mm with a stadium he can't get much money for or rent.

Who would would rent pride Park if it wasn't used by a football stadium, and knocking down pride Park to building housing would cost to much.

 

won't happen with us, our Women's team also play at the KP (and the bad PR of kicking them out for you lot would be big) and we all have to work around a fixture class with the Tigers, simply not a workable solution

[Yani P]

Looks like the deal is moving forward so can't see many issues..the complexity means quite rightly the involved parties are taking their time to ensure its right..still hopeful we have dodged the Ashley bullet which looks increasingly likely.

[jono]

4 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

if Morris wants someone to clear his debt on the stadium, there should be less issue than there seems to be .  If the council are willing to take on the debt annually to MSD, getting an annual payment to cover this from Kirchner, it can be signed over when the debt is transferred to the council.  20 million isn't even directly required.  Basically , both these blokes think that each others a nob and Kirchner won't agree to an annual rent while it belongs to Morris in case he utilises it for ongoing 'basics of PAYE' classes and Morris won't sign over a stadium in lieu of debt owed based on an annual rent, as he may have to be guarantor if he doesn't pay.

The bit in bold has been a scenario for weeks. 

 

The council won’t agree to take on or fund a debt on a promise from a business. They will need a capital asset to secure the debt before they do that.

The council buying the stadium is a simple commercial activity from the council. We have a community asset that yields a surplus of funds above the cost of the loan. 
 

Agreeing to fund a 3rd party loan at high interest, on an asset they don’t own and based on the promise and activities of a football club/businessman .. no way in a million years would a responsible public body do that with money that isn’t their own. 
 

[Mucker1884]

6 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Mel doesn’t owe £20 m though. DCFC owe that to MSD although it is secured against the stadium which is his asset. 
 

we need to get  a stadium deal to get MSD out of the equation. 

Can't DCFC just tell MSD that we're broke, and can't/won't be paying the loan > MSD call in the charge on the stadium > MM loses any control he may have (and his sole remaining asset) > MSD rent to DCFC/CK until such time as DCC are in a position to buy it (From MSD, as opposed to from MM) > DCFC/CK subsequently buys from DCC (who profit) when it is mutually more convenient.

Blimey.  This is easier than I thought!

Everyone's a winner!

 

*Well, not everyone, obvs, but it's only Mel.  Duck 'im!  ?

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

12 minutes ago, jono said:

The council won’t agree to take on or fund a debt on a promise from a business. They will need a capital asset to secure the debt before they do that.

The council buying the stadium is a simple commercial activity from the council. We have a community asset that yields a surplus of funds above the cost of the loan. 
 

Agreeing to fund a 3rd party loan at high interest, on an asset they don’t own and based on the promise and activities of a football club/businessman .. no way in a million years would a responsible public body do that with money that isn’t their own. 
 

I guess that Morris opinion on Kirchners viability to fund a lease agreement going forward then to clear these loans.   Bitcoin assets, Not much appearing liquid and calls him a nob on twitter.  

Clearly Morris doesn't want to deal with Kirchner, so there's a big issue.