jono Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 10 minutes ago, I know nuffin said: MSD loan is about 25 as they put in more to keep us going But only because they have the stadium. They wouldn’t lend with security. Surely ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 6 minutes ago, Big Trav said: Check mate *checkmate What's your point there big fella? You're morphing into Bazza the Ram it seems. hintonsboots, ThePrisoner, Ramarena and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucker1884 Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 51 minutes ago, Crewton said: He can sue someone in the blink of an eye, but it takes him more than a week to update his bid. Priorities, eh?.. ? From January to mid June"? I make that about 2.6 blinks per year! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ram Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 7 hours ago, PistoldPete said: Is This guy at Bawt a lawyer? Q’s position was that insolvency law protects their client against claims during insolvency period. yet EFL and Boro we’re still trying to circumvent insolvency law. There is no way that the court would have allowed that. that’s why Gibson had to pursue Morris in the end instead. And it was pointless him pursuing us anyway as we have no money. You're missing the point. In fact you're making exactly the same mistake Quantuma did. The cross class cram was entirely legal but that's not the only test. The other test was the EFLs insolvency policy. We needed a solution that both brought us out of administration and allowed us to retain our golden share. The cross class cram solution delivered the former but ignored the latter. Your point about "claims during insolvency period" is disingenuous because it ignores the fact that "Derby County FC continues to trade via a new limited company, with the old one being liquidated along with the unpaid portion of all debts.". So this would mean that Boro and Wycombe would be permanently denied the opportunity to pursue their claims because the legal entity their claim was against (the old one) would no longer exist. Their claims would have been completely extinguished, not just postponed. As a Derby fan, I don't personally care about that any more than you do but it should be obvious that the EFL could never have agreed to that. None of the potential bidders were prepared to move forward until Morris resolved the Boro claim. It seems reasonable to assume they were acting on legal advice. Your argument appears to be that the EFL should have ignored similar legal advice and been prepared to take the risk that none of the bidders were prepared to take. It's just not a reasonable expectation. I'll be honest though. When i first heard that the EFL had blocked Quantuma's proposal in January I did start to think that you might all have been right all along and that the EFL really did have a vendetta against Derby and wanted to see us liquidated. But once I looked at it in detail it became clear that the evidence just doesn't support that conclusion. Unfortunately it's our club that's been at fault at every stage. First Mel Morris and then Quantuma. Hopefully better days lie ahead for all of us. RipleyRich and i-Ram 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanny Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 49 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: All of the figures are out in the public domain. See the administrators report filed at Companies House. Thank You. I will have a look. I am not an expert in UK based contracts/deals. A majority of my experience is based in the America’s/Canada. But that would be surprising to me if all financial details are indeed public. Perhaps it is. That would be rather unique in my experience. My hesitation is based on: If ALL financial details are indeed public, then why are there conflicting reports, and why would there be any need for ‘shadow games’ or positioning when it comes to negotiations. It should be bog-standard if the numbers are as available as logging into a website. RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 21 minutes ago, I know nuffin said: MSD loan is about 25 as they put in more to keep us going It's £20.5m for the stadium. £3.5m on top was a separate loan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MackworthRamIsGod Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 Mike Ashley Sh!t Housery Comrade 86 and Will Hughes Hair 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one_chop Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 At this rate the club will be purchased by a Mexican drug cartel for the purposes of money laundering. hintonsboots, Derby4Me and MackworthRamIsGod 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 1 minute ago, Red Ram said: You're missing the point. In fact you're making exactly the same mistake Quantuma did. The cross class cram was entirely legal but that's not the only test. The other test was the EFLs insolvency policy. We needed a solution that both brought us out of administration and allowed us to retain our golden share. The cross class cram solution delivered the former but ignored the latter. The problem is, the EFL had also made exactly the same mistake as Quantuma. They considered their insolvency policy, but didn’t consider the legal issues. As soon as Quantuma had had legal advice that the claims were without merit, they legally couldn’t use any club funds to address them. Which is why we had months of deadlock because neither side felt they were capable of moving under their respective legal requirements. It was only when a 3rd party stepped in that the issue got resolved. Red Ram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 18 minutes ago, jono said: Many thanks ? The only query I have is the MSD debt. So the debt is on the club but secured with collateral on the stadium. ? if the club is dissolved and reformed paying creditors 25% then MSD get their 25% but surely then, they claim on the security they have, I.e the stadium and Mel MSD aren't an unsecured creditor so aren't in the 25/35% group. Someone has to pay the full £20.5m... there is no way around that unless someone can get uncompromising pictures of the relevant MSD employee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 12 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said: All and sundry are going after Quantuma now. I would be amazed if anyone appointed them for a one man band's insolvency, let alone a football club. That Mail article makes for a devastating read. If the unthinkable happens, and Derby County are liquidated - you can bet your bottom dollar the EFL goes down with it. Their paralysis and passivity at key stages of this process could well have put nails in the coffin. That said, I hold out hope that won't happen. If the Appleby bid is true at £40m, then that covers ground and club at 25%, and Quantuma AND the EFL should be working flat out to get that complete. While part of me applauds MA's taking of one of the administrators to the High Court, I hope this isn't a distraction. I do wonder if the Binnies may consider having a pop at them too, given they haven't been contacted since CK's withdrawal... We’ve had the fake Sheik, Erik Alonso and Kirchner, none of whom had experience of running a football club. The Binnies haven’t either. The Mail article confirms what has been said for a long time on this forum about the incompetence of Q and the EFL. The current position is frightening and we desperately need someone with proven knowledge of running a football club to step in to rescue us and quickly. Appleby, Ashley and Morgan all fall within that criteria. It is incumbent upon the EFL to redeem their position somewhat and ensure that a viable takeover is completed as soon as possible to ensure our participation in League One this season. For me, the EFL and Q can now join Mel Morris in the dock charged with attempting to ruin Derby County. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inter politics Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 5 minutes ago, one_chop said: At this rate the club will be purchased by a Mexican drug cartel for the purposes of money laundering. Nah, Kirchner already pulled out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkleyram Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 1 hour ago, AndyinLiverpool said: Could anybody suggest a way in which this could be a bigger fiasco? Yup. What if we’d had no bidders at all, no one willing to pay anything with Q trying to drum up non existent interest from around the world? Or what if the sheikh and alonso were it? That would be a bigger fiasco. From the outside it looks as if we have 3 possible bidders (at least) all of whom have good credentials for running a football club, one of them is so keen on winning our business that he’s prepared to threaten to take the decision makers to court in order to make winning more likely. Whether it will ever get to court is a whole different matter. This is a negotiating tactic first and foremost to put pressure on. Will Hughes Hair 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 1 hour ago, BuckoBeast said: The MA article says ahead of a renewed bid Perhaps his bid will more or less match Appleby’s but with £3m less for Q’s fees and £2m more for unsecureds Seems to be what he’s shaping up for He’s a thug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 9 minutes ago, Hanny said: Thank You. I will have a look. I am not an expert in UK based contracts/deals. A majority of my experience is based in the America’s/Canada. But that would be surprising to me if all financial details are indeed public. Perhaps it is. That would be rather unique in my experience. My hesitation is based on: If ALL financial details are indeed public, then why are there conflicting reports, and why would there be any need for ‘shadow games’ or positioning when it comes to negotiations. It should be bog-standard if the numbers are as available as logging into a website. A list of creditors and thier claims has to be produced and made public as part of the administration process, what creditors might be willing to accept is obviously between them and whoever is negotiating... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
europia Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 23 hours ago, Needlesh said: Is that true? A deal was agreed with the septic tank, and if someone was to come along and agree to those exact terms with the cash in one hand and a pen in the other? Surely EFL could get their fit and proper person test done in an afternoon, so long as someone brings £1000 in an envelope? Sorry, I mean fills in the correct forms? Why can't Morgan rock up tomorrow, get all agreed, get the forms printed and have it wrapped by the time the fixtures are out? Technically, a deal could possibly be concluded. In practice, it's highly unlikely. The clock is ticking and we are no closer to a deal from the time of the club going into administration. We now hear that Quatuma have (allegedly) been duplicitous regarding the MA bid. Obviously the administrators have a lot to answer for. Their lack of competence and transparency doesn't inspire any level of confidence, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeedsCityRam Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Loughborough Ram said: If Mike Ashley is so desperate to be our owner, why doesn't he just put in a bid that makes him the highest bidder. He is probably the richest man in the process so quit f***ing about. I would imagine that this is designed to make it impossible for quantuma to accept any bids until this is settled, thus putting off all other bidders, leaving him a free run to get it for cheap. In my opinion putting Derby fans through further delays and worry will just mean that he will be roundly disliked before he's even walked through the door, and it's hard to imagine he will be left with anything more than a shell of a football club. He may at that point give himself a massive pat on the back for driving a hard bargain but I'm not sure that more than handful of Rams fans will share his enthusiasm. This is my fear. I do not see a quick resolution to this escalation from Ashley & the timing of it is appalling considering the 2 months we've wasted on Kirchner. If Ashley truly believed Quantuma's actions merited court action & he still wanted the club, why was this not brought when Kirchner was named PB in April? Imagine that he will have to offer the highest amount to creditors & use the reduction in Quantuma's fees to make the deal attractive for himself (using the EFL to threaten golden share to force a sale) but then he has the problem of getting Morris to sell PP to him. I also don't know what happens if one of the other groups hits the amount Quantuma are asking for in the meantime - does Ashley seek an injunction to stop the sale until he gets what he wants? This is a really unwelcome development unless Ashley has a watertight plan to wrap everything up quickly. Edited June 16, 2022 by LeedsCityRam Miggins, atherstoneram and Indy 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elwood P Dowd Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 2 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Perhaps his bid will more or less match Appleby’s but with £3m less for Q’s fees and £2m more for unsecureds Seems to be what he’s shaping up for He’s a thug At least if he does take over the club he will be our thug. We have no control or input into the next set of events the best we can hope for is we have a club at the end of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 1 minute ago, RadioactiveWaste said: A list of creditors and thier claims has to be produced and made public as part of the administration process, what creditors might be willing to accept is obviously between them and whoever is negotiating... And obviously those details are now 8(?) months out of date. The HMRC debt has continued to rise, more MSD money has been borrowed etc. RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodley Ram Posted June 16, 2022 Share Posted June 16, 2022 On 12/06/2022 at 09:08, Woodley Ram said: Thankyou , yes aware re relationships having worked in the correspondent banking sector, but worth pointing out. Not sure why he would choose a European bank unless it has a UK arm but even then why not go direct. re crypto which I agree it could be a reason, even if it was referred to the NCA/FinCen it should have cleared by now. However I’m not sure how quickly some European law enforcement agencies work, say Malta or Lithuania, so perhaps that is the issue? i think we re all shooting in the dark here but I’m with you I have a feeling the funds,will clear next week Got that wrong, still don’t. Understand why the funds didn’t clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now