The Administration Thread

[The Baron]

7 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

How are player transactions "valued"? That was the point. Surely you can see how easy it is to manipulate player values to help with FFP etc?

It is easy to manipulate in a multi club ownership model, as I have explained above and covered in the book, but it is within the rules. 

[kevinhectoring]

22 minutes ago, The Baron said:

That is within the rules. 

funny you mention the rules. Our accounting was so egregious that the EFL had to change the rules to make it clear it was not permitted 

[The Baron]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Would be interested to know where you got this information from. 

No accounts were filed after June 2018 and Covid struck in March 2020?

Agreed. There was a winding up order from HMRC in January 2020, which is pre-Covid. 

[Shipley Ram]

33 minutes ago, The Baron said:

46 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

How about the dual Club ownership issue and how player values and loans are conducted? Watford/Udinese, Forest/Olymiakos?

That is within the rules. 

I am suspicious that if Mel was doing it would be found to be outside the rules.

[Gritstone Tup]

50 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

The Percy article posted not long ago says “a local businessman has agreed to buy Pride Park from Morris” so must be something along the lines of a new owner for the ground then a lease deal in place with the club under Kirchner’s new ownership 

It’s a shame we’ve had to get a 3rd party in to buy the stadium, not sure how much rent will be?

[Jimbo Ram]

2 minutes ago, Gritstone Tup said:

It’s a shame we’ve had to get a 3rd party in to buy the stadium, not sure how much rent will be?

Minimal I would think, not a big issue for me. If we start next season on zero points, out of admin and able to sign a few players I will be a happy Ram ?

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

13 minutes ago, The Baron said:

It is within the rules because owners are allowed to own more than one club. City Football Group own about a dozen, for example. You may not like the rules, but that's not the same as breaking them. Everton sold an option for naming rights for a stadium that did not have planning permission to the former business partner of the owner, it looks awful, but was not breaking the rules at the time. 

As for amortisation, you have your interpretation of FRS 102 based on your accounting knowledge and experience, and I have mine, we can agree to disagree. 

But as FRS 102 by your admission is/was open to interpretation means that at the time Derby used the method they did it wasn't against the rules merely a different interpretation. If the EFL, at your prompting, wanted to make a rule, which they now have, surely retrospective introduction of a new rule and then punishment based on that rule is just plain wrong. 

[Gritstone Tup]

Just now, Jimbo Ram said:

Minimal I would think, not a big issue for me. If we start next season on zero points, out of admin and able to sign a few players I will be a happy Ram ?

Same here buddy but I’m sure there will be a charge which will reduce the amount we can spend on other assets. Yes thrilled to death let’s hope all loopholes are covered and we can’t end up in another mess further down the line.

[curb]

43 minutes ago, The Baron said:

That is within the rules. 

So was our amortisation policy until a few months ago.

[Ram-Alf]

4 minutes ago, Gritstone Tup said:

Same here buddy but I’m sure there will be a charge which will reduce the amount we can spend on other assets. Yes thrilled to death let’s hope all loopholes are covered and we can’t end up in another mess further down the line.

The EFL will have been involved with the takeover, The EFL would NEVER leave any loopholes they could exploit at a later date 

[B4ev6is]

I told you all kircher will get us

[Ellafella]

21 minutes ago, Chilwellram said:

Administration since September 2022 ?

Yep; not using the Gregorian Calendar here but the “Quantuma Calendar” which moves so quickly you are in the future and catch yourself up coming back to the present. Or summat! ?‍♂️
 

#theyvegotcomputers!

[The Baron]

8 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

But as FRS 102 by your admission is/was open to interpretation means that at the time Derby used the method they did it wasn't against the rules merely a different interpretation. If the EFL, at your prompting, wanted to make a rule, which they now have, surely retrospective introduction of a new rule and then punishment based on that rule is just plain wrong. 

To me FRS 102 is pretty unequivocal on the issue. I did not prompt the EFL to make a rule, they rejected my letter, and I also worked with the DCFC defence team in relation to the charges

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

4 minutes ago, The Baron said:

To me FRS 102 is pretty unequivocal on the issue. I did not prompt the EFL to make a rule, they rejected my letter, and I also worked with the DCFC defence team in relation to the charges

But they did return to your interpretation didn't they. Also, as yiu state its unequivocal "to you". At the time it wasn't a rule. Do you agree? 

[Gisby]

3 hours ago, Curtains said:

I honestly don’t get this brinksmanship 

Understand your frustration\bemusement but my experience of conveyancing matters is that whenever a deadline is set the legal bods will tend to work to that deadline i.e. not much completes early but the vast majority complete on or 24 hours before the deadline. Can’t say I completely understand the reason behind this but the moment 31st May was set as deadline day I almost new\expected it would go to the wire. 

[rammieib]

I could have written that Percy piece based on the tweet earlier from Kirchner. What a complete wum of a journalist he is.

[MackworthRamIsGod]

3 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

"More next week". But some posters said we must complete the stadium purchase by Friday. Don't tell me they were making stuff up... ?

Use your head.

It's Thursday, tomorrow is Friday, sounds to me like the stadium deal is done, if we read between the huge obvious lines.

There was an EFL meeting today, where no doubt everything was discussed.

The 31st was the deadline for the WHOLE deal to be sorted, stadium, club, warts and all.

The EFL wanted the club to have a stadium deal in place by tomorrow, or, a plan of how they were going to find one by Tuesday.

But hey, clearly you know best.

[G STAR RAM]

38 minutes ago, The Baron said:

Agreed. There was a winding up order from HMRC in January 2020, which is pre-Covid. 

This was around the time of the Fake Sheikh takeover and at the same time the wages went unpaid so I'd imagine it is pretty clear what happened here.

Also there is no mention of amounts, maybe you can qualify the 'significant sums'?

Also, as shown, the winding up petition was withdrawn, so one would assume this was cleared.

In summary, stating that significant sums were owed to HMRC pre Covid (as evidence that Covid was not the primary factor in DCFC being placed in administration) in my opinion is (a) most likely incorrect and (b) completely disingenuous

Edited May 26, 2022 by G STAR RAM

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

This has probably been answered multiple times, but why can't Kirchner lease the ground from Morris?

If it's because they don't like each other then surely that's just mental? If push came to shove and it was do that or the whole thing falls apart I'd hope everyone would be grown up enough to sort it.

Because one of them doesn’t trust the other whilst the other one doesn’t like the other 

[B4ev6is]

1 minute ago, Sparkle said:

Because one of them doesn’t trust the other whilst the other one doesn’t like the other 

It wont fall about