The Administration Thread

[CBX1985]

24 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

He was the front man for GSE and chairman of the club while they were the owners. He employed Tom Glick and then Sam Rush. They carried out his directions. GSE fronted a consortium of investors. Appleby still carries out that function for General Sports Worldwide as the group is now known. If David Clowes is seeking a consortium to support him in him taking over the club do you not think that he might wish to make use of Appleby's capabilities?

I do.

I agree with you, but I don't think Clowes is specifically looking for a consortium.  I think he is open to any arrangement that brings us forward.  That is not going to be at any cost, but any new or joint investors will need to bring front line added value.  

Appleby offers this.  However, if Clowes buys the club, he isn't going to then give him shares on the cheap or at an immediate loss.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

What’s your take? The above is about 60% guesswork btw and may be very wide of the mark. Nothing wrong with speculating on a forum 

I've been explaining my take since late morning and none of it is guesswork.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, CBX1985 said:

I agree with you, but I don't think Clowes is specifically looking for a consortium.

I feel very sure he is and he has made a lot of progress in putting it together before today. Not finalised yet but he's had an awfully busy week.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Brailsford Ram

[curb]

19 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

If he has investors at hand to bring in, it saves David Clowes going to look for them. If you read my earlier posts you will see I believe that Appleby (and Sam Rush) have been assisting DC's takeover of the club. I hope that does not add another layer of complication for you. If it does, I simply have to take a step back because I can't explain it any clearer. If so, I'm sorry about that.

I didn’t say it makes it more complicated for me, I said it adds an extra layer of complication (to the ownership).

[kevinhectoring]

43 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

So he's trying to instigate a BAFO from Ashley by buying the stadium that Ashley is adamant he wants as part of the deal? And even were this the case, is it a given that with Ashley having tried and failed to lowball Morris on PP, that DC would be happy to accept a £2 to £3 million hit on his newly acquired asset simply to allow a man with 10 times his net worth to get it on the cheap?

And how could he have been more aggressive in getting PB status when exclusivity sat with Kirchner? Seems to me he's been aggressive enough since that exclusivity was rescinded. I think the question you've obviously overlooked is clearly why has Ashley not been more aggressive?

I think you underestimate the munificence of St David. I think he was determined to save us. Once he had bought the stadium, he knew that was in his power because he knew he himself was willing to make a bid for the club that cleared the points deduction hurdle. 
 

He was (is) our underwriter. 
 

If it proved that Ashley was willing to pay more than DC for the club, fine. I think DC would have let him have it and would have negotiated a long term lease. (That constitutes ownership of the stadium for all intents and purposes) 

Don’t think it will happen, but it’s still not impossible that Ashley will swoop 

[europia]

Is Appleby still is the final strokes? Must be tiring. 

[atherstoneram]

7 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The average L1 club has revenue of £6m. Given SCMP rules, that means the average L1 club has a player wage bill of less than £4m.

Derby will have an estimated revenue of £15-18m next season. Even if the EFL imposed an astoundingly tough punishment of 25% of revenue of wages (a third of what a normal club relegated from the Championship can spend) then we'd still be on par with the average L1 club.

Rules have to be the same for everyone. Wigan certainly didn't have anything close to a 25% limit when relegated whilst in administration. That would be a wage bill of about £1.75m. They were also allowed to spend significant sums on players the transfer window immediately following them exiting administration. It would be equivalent to us spending £2m on one player, then still spending more on other players.

The EFL rules for exiting administration are clear, no club shall be deemed to gain an advantage on exiting administration. We have a big fanbase so will have a bigger estimated revenue which means we can afford to offer more under normal circumstances.

The view will be that if we go offering £2m on one player then that money could have been used so creditors could have been paid more, it is a penalty to ensure we don't have an unfair advantage and that while the deal to pay creditors is in place then a restrictive business plan will remain in place but not as restrictive as one with a 15 point deduction thrown into the mix. The EFL won't allow us to pay only 25% then having an open chequebook to sign players.

[Ramos]

6 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

I feel very sure he is and he has made a lot of progress in putting it together before today. Not finalised yet but he's had an awfully busy week.

Do you anticipate some of said consortium will be announced upon completion or is it likely people will come on board in time? 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 minute ago, atherstoneram said:

The EFL rules for exiting administration are clear, no club shall be deemed to gain an advantage on exiting administration. We have a big fanbase so will have a bigger estimated revenue which means we can afford to offer more under normal circumstances.

The view will be that if we go offering £2m on one player then that money could have been used so creditors could have been paid more, it is a penalty to ensure we don't have an unfair advantage and that while the deal to pay creditors is in place then a restrictive business plan will remain in place but not as restrictive as one with a 15 point deduction thrown into the mix. The EFL won't allow us to pay only 25% then having an open chequebook to sign players.

Explain why Wigan were allowed to spend fees on players immediately after exiting administration then.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, curb said:

I didn’t say it makes it more complicated for me, I said it adds an extra layer of complication (to the ownership).

Ownership or partnership? The League of Gentlemen was a partnership and it wasn't very complicated. It rescued us very successfully from the Three Amigos, two of whom went to prison together with their solicitor and financial director ?

[kevinhectoring]

51 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I think he is a busy man.. a heavy programme of building and regeneration projects  ongoing.  He may not have time to be involved in the running of DCFC so may need a partner to help him do that. How that partnership plays out is possibly still to be decided. Not the same as saying he doesn't want to own it. 

I don’t agree. The points you raise argue for 100% ownership, a very strong CEO and a good organisational structure. Consortia and partnerships are frequently a nightmare 

[atherstoneram]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Explain why Wigan were allowed to spend fees on players immediately after exiting administration then.

I am not saying we won't be allowed to spend fees on players, just restricted as to what we can offer.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Ramos said:

Do you anticipate some of said consortium will be announced upon completion or is it likely people will come on board in time? 

Possibly on completion if everything comes together in the next three days but if not then quite soon afterwards I think.

Bloody hell, you're making me sound like Alan Nixon now ??

[kevinhectoring]

14 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

I've been explaining my take since late morning and none of it is guesswork.

Seen posts from you on various aspects but not this one. Sorry if I missed it.  What are your views on the question you raised - ie the likelihood of co-investment between DC  and AA?

[Ramos]

1 minute ago, Brailsford Ram said:

Possibly on completion if everything comes together in the next three days but if not then quite soon afterwards I think.

Bloody hell, you're making me sound like Alan Nixon now ??

You just need to say ‘But clock is ticking’ and I’d have thought you are one of the same ?

[Ghost of Clough]

1 minute ago, atherstoneram said:

I am not saying we won't be allowed to spend fees on players, just restricted as to what we can offer.

Wigan spent about £700k on a single player when they have a usual L1 revenue of £7m. Why couldn't they pay that money to creditors instead?

The EFL approved Wigan spending at least 10% of their revenue on one player so these 'clear exiting administration rules' you speak of will clearly let us spend an equivalent sum based on our revenue.

[RadioactiveWaste]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Explain why Wigan were allowed to spend fees on players immediately after exiting administration then.

We'll be able to spend on fees as long as they're in line with the business plan the EFL agreed as part of the exit from administration.

Given our lack of 1st team squad, theres going to be provision for some fees.

I expect we are able to make renewals and free angent offers now (at EFL discression) as the money for the season has already been loaned to the club be DC.

The details of the EFL business plan are likely to remain confidential and it's highly likely that the one DC is working to is very similar to what was agreed with CK. A business plan based on no fees being paid at all would not be workable to field a meaningful team.

My feeling is DC has decided he can fund the club up to what's in the business plan, that's his basis for going in with the bid to buy the club as well as PP, if he couldn't afford it, he'd have not bid or been working with another bidder.

 

 

[atherstoneram]

4 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

Not sure how that works though....if he's contracted to x amount of pounds a week then that's a contractual obligation which his employer has to uphold?

Unless you are legally entitled to vary a persons contract when their employer is in administration?

More than likely a mutual decision which benefits both parties.

[atherstoneram]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Wigan spent about £700k on a single player when they have a usual L1 revenue of £7m. Why couldn't they pay that money to creditors instead?

The EFL approved Wigan spending at least 10% of their revenue on one player so these 'clear exiting administration rules' you speak of will clearly let us spend an equivalent sum based on our revenue.

We won't know what the business plan will be that will have been discussed and agreed by the parties concerned and will be restrictive as opposed to what we could spend as per ratio of income. When you have debts of £30+ million there is no way the EFL will let a club go spending "x" millions of one player. The debts at Wigan were nowhere near as much as ours if i remember.

[hintonsboots]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Wigan spent about £700k on a single player when they have a usual L1 revenue of £7m. Why couldn't they pay that money to creditors instead?

The EFL approved Wigan spending at least 10% of their revenue on one player so these 'clear exiting administration rules' you speak of will clearly let us spend an equivalent sum based on our revenue.

You would expect the EFL’s treatment of Wigan would have set a precedent as they also paid 25% to non football creditors( presuming this is the Clowes deal). But the EFL have a poor track record with DCFC, challenging every decision. I suppose now the Parasites are back under their stones, they will at least stick to their own rule book.