The Administration Thread

[ram59]

52 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

 

Yep and their supporters are taking much joy in it. 

Great move from Liverpool, Derby in financial difficulties and desperately needed the money now, Liverpool will sell the kid for millions in the future and Derby won’t get a washer

Another smart move. Proper baller right here. Club's future looking increasingly sorted.

Watch Liverpool gonna sell Gordon to Bournemouth for £25M in 2024

So Liverpool sell him for anything over £2.5M and they'll be in profit and we lose, they'd get more than that if they were to sell their tea lady/man. 

If CK was anywhere near buying this club, surely he wouldn't have allowed such bad business, this just smacks of desperation from the administrators and has to be a very worrying sign, sadly.

[Malagaram]

What is the news that Mike Ashley is to make a counter offer within 48 hours,was on Derbyshire East Midland news on BBC1 last night.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

Just now, ram59 said:

So Liverpool sell him for anything over £2.5M and they'll be in profit and we lose, they'd get more than that if they were to sell their tea lady/man. 

If CK was anywhere near buying this club, surely he wouldn't have allowed such bad business, this just smacks of desperation from the administrators and has to be a very worrying sign, sadly.

Include the undoubted 5 million in loan fees over 2 seasons. any club selling to a premiership team directly from their academy, should get a 50% cut off these fess as standard legislation up to the age of 23 in my opinion- but don 't.

[RadioactiveWaste]

4 minutes ago, ram59 said:

So Liverpool sell him for anything over £2.5M and they'll be in profit and we lose, they'd get more than that if they were to sell their tea lady/man. 

If CK was anywhere near buying this club, surely he wouldn't have allowed such bad business, this just smacks of desperation from the administrators and has to be a very worrying sign, sadly.

Very much a "keep the lights on" move and very much confirmation that CK is not funding a club he doesn't own.

 

3 minutes ago, Malagaram said:

What is the news that Mike Ashley is to make a counter offer within 48 hours,was on Derbyshire East Midland news on BBC1 last night.

He's probably been ready to pounce waiting on CK getting frustraited / exclusivity running out.

Of course bing Mike Ashley, it's not going to happen until the utter maximum pain has been inflicted on creditors, just the way he does business.

[IslandExile]

18 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Can't wait for the Fans Forums and the 'free scarves'! Can't see much difference in the behaviour of CK or early MM tbh.

Not impressed with the clubbing when he's got an early meeting next day. But that's his choice of how he is seen.

I guess you are ruling Mike Ashley out too on the same basis, eh? Seen drinking beers with the fans in his early days at Newcastle.

I mean you wouldn't want to be inconsistent, would you?

[Tamworthram]

1 minute ago, IslandExile said:

I guess you are ruling Mike Ashley out too on the same basis, eh? Seen drinking beers with the fans in his early days at Newcastle.

I mean you wouldn't want to be inconsistent, would you?

If we get too judgemental we won't have an owner or a manager and our transfer targets might become a little more limited. 

[Carl Sagan]

34 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

I'll give this a stab...

1) Last on this was that CK and WR had apparently met the landlord for Moor Farm (as mentioned in the pre-Cardiff presser). Moor Farm is leasehold, and AFAIK the lease will be included in the sale with the charge attached, as it is listed as being part of 'The Derby County Football Club Limited' rather than Mel's other company.

2) Supposedly CK was to be funding the club as of Saturday, whether this has changed as a result of the weekend, I'm not sure. If the deal falls through then he will be classed as a creditor.

3) I don't believe there's any difference, other than MA (or A N Other) can now come in with an offer.

4) If the admins (i.e. the club) fail to pay MSD, presumably as a result of liquidation, then the floating charge is attached to PPS and the company that owns it (Mel). 

Thanks - I don't understand point 4. How can the security for a loan to the club be on something the club doesn't even own?

I think you're saying if DCFC are liquidated, then Mel has to pay MSD or loses the ground. If that is what you're saying, I just wonder if there is any other circumstance (ie where we're not liquidated) in which Mel might be forced to pay MSD or loses the ground? 

[RammingStone66]

6 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

I guess you are ruling Mike Ashley out too on the same basis, eh? Seen drinking beers with the fans in his early days at Newcastle.

I mean you wouldn't want to be inconsistent, would you?

Totally agree @IslandExile

I'd be more worried about MAs behavior lol, remember Iain Wright, chairman of the business committee, was quoted as saying about Sports Direct after the big inquiry *A business whose working practices are closer to that of a Victorian workhouse than that of a modern, reputable high-street retailer”. MPs said workers at Sports Direct were not always paid the national minimum wage and had been penalised for taking time off work when ill.

Wasn't MA quoted as saying he was a "power drinker"

[kevinhectoring]

3 hours ago, WystonRam said:

They actually said that Mel said that the stadium would not be an issue. Mel has cleverly kept the stadium outside of administration.

Yes tho Q later said they had a written agreement with MM about the stadium. Perhaps it wasn’t written very well 

MSD could have forced 202 to file. But I’d guess you’re right and that MM agreed to Q’s appointment at the club on the basis that 202 would not file. 
 

Truth is, the bids just aren’t high enough,  so would it have made a difference if 202 was in administration ? We’d still be 20m short of avoiding points deductions, maybe worse. 

 

 

[Oldben]

https://the72.co.uk/272659/derby-county-to-receive-500k-as-part-of-transfer-agreement-with-liverpool-for-kaide-gordon/

Hm ... 500k to remove 20% sell on fee is good news for Liverpool.

It's not good news for Derby.

Let's say Liverpool sell him for 10 million when he's 21, which isn't that high for a 21 year old Premier league player.

 

[Animal is a Ram]

 

[kevinhectoring]

11 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

How can the security for a loan to the club be on something the club doesn't even own?

Because someone else has guaranteed the loan and given security over their own assets to support their guarantee 

[TomTom92]

Unless MA has upped his offer significantly or he has an ace up his sleeve for the stadium I can’t see how him coming back in helps anyone.

I imagine even the administrators are pulling their hair out now. Got a good enough deal to see us on no minus figures for next season but Mel won’t play ball. 

[Ghost of Clough]

7 minutes ago, Oldben said:

https://the72.co.uk/272659/derby-county-to-receive-500k-as-part-of-transfer-agreement-with-liverpool-for-kaide-gordon/

Hm ... 500k to remove 20% sell on fee is good news for Liverpool.

It's not good news for Derby.

Let's say Liverpool sell him for 10 million when he's 21, which isn't that high for a 21 year old Premier league player.

 

If he turns out as good as he could be, Liverpool won't ever wany to sell him. They've probably factored that in.

[Papahet]

 Genuinely have  no idea why people are against Mike Ashley taking us over.

Because he isn't bowing down to the admins , Morris demands and throwing money at other people's debt?

[RoyMac5]

33 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

I guess you are ruling Mike Ashley out too on the same basis, eh? Seen drinking beers with the fans in his early days at Newcastle.

I mean you wouldn't want to be inconsistent, would you?

I'm more concerned with who has the money to buy us, for your information. 

You are indeed consistent.

Edited May 9, 2022 by RoyMac5

[Animal is a Ram]

17 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Thanks - I don't understand point 4. How can the security for a loan to the club be on something the club doesn't even own?

I think you're saying if DCFC are liquidated, then Mel has to pay MSD or loses the ground. If that is what you're saying, I just wonder if there is any other circumstance (ie where we're not liquidated) in which Mel might be forced to pay MSD or loses the ground? 

I'm not sure how that works either - but I guess it was the terms agreed at the time.

Unsure of any other scenarios where that would apply else, but even if we're liquidated then in theory Mel could just sit there waiting for someone to buy while he repays the loan. How long he can, or is willing to, do that for is anyone's guess.

[IslandExile]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

I'm more concerned with who has the money for your information. 

You are indeed consistent.

Mike Ashley has the money but, so far, he's not that forthcoming with it, is he?

You are also consistent. You choose which side you are on and defend that to the hilt, while criticising the other side for doing exactly the same thing. Are you a politician by any chance?

[Animal is a Ram]

7 minutes ago, Papahet said:

 Genuinely have  no idea why people are against Mike Ashley taking us over.

Because he isn't bowing down to the admins , Morris demands and throwing money at other people's debt?

I mean, the only way anyone buys the club has to do these things, really.

I'd rather it not be MA because of previous form. When the jewels in Derby's crown is the Academy and the training facilities, and MA was known for neglecting these things at Newcastle, it becomes understandable that people are a little worried at the prospect of his ownership.

By the same token, his experience is a positive, because he has at least run a club before, and also, to be very superficial we can be sure of the wealth he has.

Don't get me wrong, beggars can't be choosers - but given the choice? CK for me.

[SuffolkRam]

8 minutes ago, Papahet said:

 Genuinely have  no idea why people are against Mike Ashley taking us over.

Because he isn't bowing down to the admins , Morris demands and throwing money at other people's debt?

Only against him because he is risking the future of the club by dragging things out to get a good deal for himself.  Players are leaving in days.  Need it sorting before we lose them and the manager.