The Administration Thread

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

I see Nixon is going on about the stadium plus bid again. 

And involving them in paying June's wages as they'd eventually be part of the whole deal.

 

Nixon is exceling himself today in saying lots and saying nothing (trust me on that I'm an expert ? ? )!

Is CK still on the 18th green .

Is he resurrecting his bid .

No surely not 

[Carnero]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

Lol. How could you get the EFL to potentially agree to another option, without interfering?! They hold the power to take away our Golden share - we have to include them in the on-going negotiations, sooner rather than later.

Oh and all this is Mel's fault, he racked up our huge debts.

 

"the minimum requirements for a bidder to be referred to the EFL for consideration are:

1) Bidders to submit offers that pay football creditors in full, pay 25p in the £ to other creditors (or 35p in the £ over 3 years) and propose a suitable solution for the club’s ongoing occupation of the stadium.

2) If such offers are not received, the next possibility is for offers that pay football creditors in full and propose a suitable solution for the club’s ongoing occupation of the stadium. In this scenario, where less than 25p in the £ is paid to other creditors, a 15-point deduction would be imposed for next season (depending on when a sale completes)."

---

I fail to see what realistic option doesn't include the very basics of paying 100% to the football stadium and securing the rights to play at Pride Park whether as owner or tenant.

£8.4m (maybe less) pays the football creditors in full and somebody (Clowes probably) has already agreed a deal for the stadium if required.

In theory for Option 2, a bid of £8.4m (maybe less) is enough!

What other option are you and others expecting is available?

[Arsene Titman]

Nixon’s update this a.m.

- admins struggling to get bidders to pay what is needed to avoid administration.

-highly unlikely that a deal will be done before June wages due.

-admins talking to one party that is part of a bidding group and that one party is willing to pay the monthly payroll c.£1.6m. This gives breathing space, avoids 3 points deduction and might help Rooney keep some players.

 

[BramcoteRam84]

54 minutes ago, Curtains said:

What a terrible outcome .

Who's going to fund player and manager contracts and wages and transfers.  etc
 

Local businessmen cobble together (as has been reported from numerous sources) short term and we run break even model for the next year while it gets sorted out. Not saying it’s a good outcome it’s awful but if Q  are being truthful in their statements, that’s the reality, we don’t right now have a bid to retain the golden share, ie Mel has made the club unsellable. If we believe Q that is, my question is do we believe them?

[Carnero]

... and before anybody starts, I know £8.4m wouldn't do it as other creditors need paying, but it's to highlight the point that there is no 3rd option!

[Carnero]

2 minutes ago, Carnero said:

"the minimum requirements for a bidder to be referred to the EFL for consideration are:

1) Bidders to submit offers that pay football creditors in full, pay 25p in the £ to other creditors (or 35p in the £ over 3 years) and propose a suitable solution for the club’s ongoing occupation of the stadium.

2) If such offers are not received, the next possibility is for offers that pay football creditors in full and propose a suitable solution for the club’s ongoing occupation of the stadium. In this scenario, where less than 25p in the £ is paid to other creditors, a 15-point deduction would be imposed for next season (depending on when a sale completes)."

---

I fail to see what realistic option doesn't include the very basics of paying 100% to the football stadium and securing the rights to play at Pride Park whether as owner or tenant.

£8.4m (maybe less) pays the football creditors in full and somebody (Clowes probably) has already agreed a deal for the stadium if required.

In theory for Option 2, a bid of £8.4m (maybe less) is enough!

What other option are you and others expecting is available?

... and before anybody starts, I know £8.4m wouldn't do it as other creditors need paying, but it's to highlight the point that there is no 3rd option!

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, Carnero said:

In theory for Option 2, a bid of £8.4m (maybe less) is enough!

What other option are you and others expecting is available?

.. and before anybody starts, I know £8.4m wouldn't do it as other creditors need paying, but it's to highlight the point that there is no 3rd option!

So you're saying that no-one has even offered 'Option 2'?

I was assuming that 25% was option 1 and 35% over 3 yrs was option 2.

If there is no 3rd option then we're done.

Edited June 20, 2022 by RoyMac5

[Stive Pesley]

7 minutes ago, Arsene Titman said:

-admins talking to one party that is part of a bidding group and that one party is willing to pay the monthly payroll c.£1.6m. This gives breathing space, avoids 3 points deduction and might help Rooney keep some players.

and might help keep Rooney too!

I know he's under contract, but failure to pay his wages would constitute breach of contract and he could walk away

[Carnero]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

So you're saying that no-one has even offered 'Option 2'?

I was assuming that 25% was option 1 and 35% over 3 yrs was option 2.

If there is no 3rd option then we're done.

So you've been moaning about a Quantuma reponse to RamsTrust that you've not even read?! ?

[duncanjwitham]

10 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Yet isn’t the EFL wanting to look at all the bids looking at hypotheticals ? 

I suppose. But I suspect the EFL don't want to even engage on it (for now anyway), because of the potential fallout from other clubs.  They don't want the admins to even think it's a realistic possibility, because as soon as it, the admins are probably going to have to take it.  And if bids do come in under that minimum floor, it's the football creditors that will get hit, because with security on the stadium, there's simply no way that money doesn't get paid (by someone, somewhere).  And then the EFL are opening themselves up to legal action from the football creditors that got stiffed by us.

[atherstoneram]

10 hours ago, Dave Mackay Ate My Hamster said:

I'd be surprised if there's that much left in assets Gee Screamer. Not arguing with you. Players can't be forced to be sold. If we liquidate they're free agents, ergo any interested club won't have to pay a transfer fee. Their agents would factor in the absence of a transfer fee to bump up their remuneration package with any prospective new club. Surely?

In the event of liquidation the players are still legally under contract and any monies raised by the EFL goes towards paying football creditors and the admin.

[Ghost of Clough]

3 hours ago, alram said:

Grow up like seriously, you sound like. 10 year old child.

you don’t blame them for wanting to share stuff with the efl? The governing body! if the incoming buyers don’t want to share stuff with the people that will sign off any deal then we should be saying bye bye.

it’s not in the interests of the EFL to see us go bust, as much as people have convinced  them self into thinking it is. 
the only blockage is Q

In a single blind bid process, none of the bidders will want to risk the EFL leaking bid values, because the next person will know exactly what they have to bid to get the club. Some will also want to keep their names hidden for now, just in case they don't get the club and get abuse as result. Ashley and Appleby have both been on the receiving end of it, just because "they could have bought the club at any stage over the last 9 months"

[Sparkle]

14 minutes ago, Carnero said:

... and before anybody starts, I know £8.4m wouldn't do it as other creditors need paying, but it's to highlight the point that there is no 3rd option!

I accept your point but I do believe there has to be other options whilst unpalatable to the EFL or FA they may still be options 

[Crewton]

21 minutes ago, Gritstone Tup said:

I’m simply outlining how easy it is to redevelop and make a profit. PP being a newer ground and without restrictions would be far cheaper to adapt for new use. From memory Highbury had some sort of covenant/listed status.

There are planning restrictions over PP and it has the status of an Asset of Community Value, courtesy of Rams Trust I believe, so getting consent to redevelop it would be far from easy in my view.

Highbury had one Grade 2 listed stand - the East stand - but they decided to also convert the West Stand to retain some symmetry and history. Like Upton Park, it was surrounded by houses and therefore a very lucrative development plot for housebuilders in a way that would never be comparable to Pride Park, even if they could get consent to build houses there, which I believe would be highly unlikely.

[RoyMac5]

9 minutes ago, Carnero said:

So you've been moaning about a Quantuma reponse to RamsTrust that you've not even read?! ?

I posted it, yes I've read it.

But it is all getting very confusing. We have a bidder but no buyer. We have interested parties but no buyer. We now have (again?) according to Nixon a consortium wanting to buy different bits and add them together but no buyers.

But all the time the two parties that are making sure they get all their money are Mel and Q.

I'm not sure what will happen next, are you? ?

Edited June 20, 2022 by RoyMac5

[Papahet]

Why can't Morris simply pay a portion of the creditors? Surely this will benefit everyone, including MM and we'd be more attractive for any potential buyers.

So simple and yet so complicated ?

[Carnero]

13 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

I accept your point but I do believe there has to be other options whilst unpalatable to the EFL or FA they may still be options 

What options? Don't pay the football creditors in full potentially blowing up the whole transfer system, or don't play at Pride Park Stadium?

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, Rammeister said:

You sound like a genuinely interesting and fascinating man. I’d like to find out a little more about you; What was your mothers maiden name? Your first school? And first pets name. And, I’d really love to see a pic of a real Barclays premium debit card- any chance you could just take a pic please and DM it. Thanks!

Mothers maiden name...Swamilamboola

1st School..Lagos Orphanage 

1st pets name...Hippo

Premium Card...you can fill your own name and numbers if you like...or send me your bank details and I'll do it for you

 

[Carnero]

13 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I posted it, yes I've read it.

But it is all getting very confusing. We have a bidder but no buyer. We have interested parties but no buyer. We now have (again?) according to Nixon a consortium wanting to buy different bits and add them together but no buyers.

But all the time the two parties that are making sure they get all their money are Mel and Q.

I'm not sure what will happen next, are you? ?

No I'm not sure, but I still think there will be a solution even if it's not going to be as quick as we'd all like.

Looks like their next step is securing funding and carrying on in situ... 

[atherstoneram]

2 hours ago, Gritstone Tup said:

So why didn’t he carry on with the purchase?

if he got it for £23 million then he’d probably make a profit out of flattening it and building on it, so no risk!

it’s all lies and damn lies, MM wanted to raise us to the ground and he’s succeeded.

Why? I don’t know!

Because he was only going to act as an intermediary as CK wouldn't deal with MM (or it might be the other way round). CK drops out so no need for Clowes to buy the club.