The Administration Thread

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

Section 3 of The Mental Health Act (1983)?

That only accounts for up to  6 months of time

[PistoldPete]

9 minutes ago, Indy said:

With the greatest respect, that last paragraph is drivel. Birch’s reply sounds like Quantuma have said they are happy to share discussions, but it would also require the permission of the other parties involved (ie the bidder) who have not given their consent. Having leaked like a sieve for a year, I’m not surprised bidders want to keep the EFL away from a closed and confidential bidding process. 

That's  exactly right Indy. Q has said some bidders have gone public (like ashley has, selectively) and some want to remain anoymous, which is their right.  Q has to respect the privacy of those  bidders who want to keep their privacy.   

[Loughborough Ram]

I think that it's vitally important at this time that Derby fans focus on who the bad guys are in this situation. 

Almost from the start of administrations the EFL have been an 'enemy'. For them to start posturing and grandstanding now is a complete insult in my opinion, and no Rams fan should be under any illusion that their current 'concern' for our welfare is completely disingenuous, they couldn't give a f***, their only concern is for their own future and the torrent of criticism that will come their way if we go out of business.

Add to that the way Quantuma have conducted this administration, and Rams fans have been abandoned on all sides.

We are in a position where rich men on all sides of our current predicament are happy to lie and leak stories to the media as long as it furthers their cause.

I'm surprised by how much fighting there is on this forum, as in my opinion we have to stick together, nobody else is going to fight for us, be sure of that.

[Woodypecker]

20 minutes ago, Indy said:

With the greatest respect, that last paragraph is drivel. Birch’s reply sounds like Quantuma have said they are happy to share discussions, but it would also require the permission of the other parties involved (ie the bidder) who have not given their consent. Having leaked like a sieve for a year, I’m not surprised bidders want to keep the EFL away from a closed and confidential bidding process. 

As usual, the EFL narrative implies that things are going wrong (in this final process) and that they *must* intervene. Self-protective bullsh!t.

Q have to honour confidentiality, and other privacy law. 

Q will select the chosen bidder...NOT the EFL; the EFL are there to ensure the buyer complies with their Rules & Regulations and 'fit & proper test'. Birch and his leaky, duplicitous cronies do not sit round a table with Q sifting the bids.

Unfortunately, the EFL have perpetually shown themselves to lack confidentiality, feeding clickbait media, and have also wilfully impeded processes.

Their damaging acquiescence about the creditor status of the parasite claims (which in itself added months to the admin process and they blocked/discouraged bidders with such 'obstacles' since last December) - and between themselves and Q, gave Kirchner many weeks too long to complete.

I expect that after this protracted fiasco, if any enquiry or investigation takes place, the sky will fall in on both Q and the EFL, and we will be well rid of both of them.

It seems that if the club survives, it will be in spite of their efforts, rather than because of them ? 

 

 

[Turk Thrust]

2 hours ago, alram said:

no. i expect them to work with the efl, not pull the whole NDA cobblers they have hid behind from the very start. 

if there is nothing to hide they wouldnt be hiding behind it. 

WHAT IS GOING ON AT OUR CLUB?

You obviously have no knowledge of the legal implications of not abiding by NDAs or the GDPR

[Ghost of Clough]

6 hours ago, Oldben said:

If the bidders don't make an offer aligned to what Q are seeking, there's no deal.

The size of the debt makes it the largest debt on football history in the UK.

A new bidder is likely to receive preferred bidder status, once they pass the threshold for buying the club, as set by Q.

Just how much has our debt grown by since the administrators last update? ?

Edited June 18, 2022 by Ghost of Clough

[I know nuffin]

54 minutes ago, alram said:

administrators are not doing their job if they don't work alongside the efl and sort it out. 

 

black balling the efl risks the golden share getting revoked, then the creditors get nothing.

 

it is absolutely to do with the efl, we are members of their organisation and they need clarity about the coming season - not to be ignored. i can't believe people disagree with this point?

Correct but the EFL should not be party to what the bids are. Like it or not the administrators were appointed by a court, the efl were not. The EFL can have plenty of input and give advice and give deadlines and that is about all.

[maxjam]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

Just how much has our debt grown by since the administrators last update? ?

Not by as much as Burnleys ?

Although having large debt isn't necessarily a problem as the chart shows, its the ability to service it.

[Ghost of Clough]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Just how much has our debt grown by since the administrators last update? ?

Oh, I see @Oldben meant in the history of the Championship. Not even top 6.

 

[DCFC1388]

Surely if there is no takeover done by Tues the admins need to secure funding for the rest of the season, at least that way we can start to build pur squad within the framework of the finances for the season.

I dont see a further loan putting off bidders as if it was that much of a concern they would bid enough now. Also, they would have covered the cost of the season themselves anyway so any loan would be what they would have already paid, maybe just with abit of interest on top which imo they deserve to pay for making this drag out and not just bidding.

[May Contain Nuts]

1 hour ago, alram said:

go back to my posts around january, i was saying we should be selling players. i know how administrations work, they did not act like the club was in administration

As I said earlier, that's fair enough and fair play 

Just don't think it means you're right about everything else! 

[jono]

2 hours ago, alram said:

no. i expect them to work with the efl, not pull the whole NDA cobblers they have hid behind from the very start. 

if there is nothing to hide they wouldnt be hiding behind it. 

WHAT IS GOING ON AT OUR CLUB?

NDA isn’t cobblers. It’s a legal agreement signed by parties and if they breach them then they must pay damages. Just because you, and all of us, want something doesn’t mean the law is set to one side.  
 

What is going on at our club is, that it is a financial mess and some people are trying to sort it out. Some are doing better than others. While you and I are a fans; in the real commercial world that doesn’t make us anything more than customers. And as there isn’t a product to sell at the moment, and as you haven’t bought anything other than a match ticket, for which you “received” the product you paid for, then you have no rights whatsoever.

Hey it hurts me too but this is the harsh reality, raging about it achieves nothing other than high blood pressure. 

[PistoldPete]

11 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

Surely if there is no takeover done by Tues the admins need to secure funding for the rest of the season, at least that way we can start to build pur squad within the framework of the finances for the season.

I dont see a further loan putting off bidders as if it was that much of a concern they would bid enough now. Also, they would have covered the cost of the season themselves anyway so any loan would be what they would have already paid, maybe just with abit of interest on top which imo they deserve to pay for making this drag out and not just bidding.

Birch's response to the supporter groups could be interpreted that not only do admin need to secure funding for next season (or until March 2023), but also to show they can exit admin on or before March 2023. Which sort of makes a mockery of saying you can start the season in admin.     

[Joe]

is it correct that if Derby are still in administration at the start of the season that means another points deduction?

[Animal is a Ram]

4 minutes ago, Joe said:

is it correct that if Derby are still in administration at the start of the season that means another points deduction?

No. If there's players not paid, there's a -3 due.

However, we only have until March 2023 to exit, according to the EFL.

[68 Guns]

1 hour ago, Loughborough Ram said:

I think that it's vitally important at this time that Derby fans focus on who the bad guys are in this situation. 

Almost from the start of administrations the EFL have been an 'enemy'. For them to start posturing and grandstanding now is a complete insult in my opinion, and no Rams fan should be under any illusion that their current 'concern' for our welfare is completely disingenuous, they couldn't give a f***, their only concern is for their own future and the torrent of criticism that will come their way if we go out of business.

Add to that the way Quantuma have conducted this administration, and Rams fans have been abandoned on all sides.

We are in a position where rich men on all sides of our current predicament are happy to lie and leak stories to the media as long as it furthers their cause.

I'm surprised by how much fighting there is on this forum, as in my opinion we have to stick together, nobody else is going to fight for us, be sure of that.

It's not 'bad guys'. It's singular. His name is Mel. 

[Gritstone Ram]

From what I can see I think all this paper talk and £50m offers is complete BS. Who is showing their hand? MA AA etc all using the press? Is Quantuma trying to up the bids? I reckon it’s all a load of toss. The EFL go on about NDA or GDPR but how come most is reported on Twitter or in the Sun? 

[Loughborough Ram]

7 minutes ago, 68 Guns said:

It's not 'bad guys'. It's singular. His name is Mel. 

He's the reason for it all, but that doesn't absolve all of the other parties of their responsibilities.

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, Gritstone Ram said:

From what I can see I think all this paper talk and £50m offers is complete BS. Who is showing their hand? MA AA etc all using the press? Is Quantuma trying to up the bids? I reckon it’s all a load of toss. The EFL go on about NDA or GDPR but how come most is reported on Twitter or in the Sun? 

Because some bidders want to use the press (selectively). And others do not. If bidders want to stay private or keep some details private that privacy has to be respected. 

[hintonsboots]

Derby: Nocturnal dog walk it’s a s*** business so to Pride Park EFL trying to talk in a catholic confessional box but no priest present. Money men circling Q HQ. More in paper tomorrow.

@reluctanthicko