The Administration Thread

[Sparkle]

9 hours ago, Alty_Ram said:

Rightly or wrongly I have assumed that Q know that none of the bids will pass muster so after a kind of 'Best and Final Offer' appeal to any and all bidders and interested parties they have wrung every last drop they can out of this with view to saying - here you go, this is the best we can do. I can't in truth see a bid ticking enough boxes without MM doing something unexpected.

I would put up with him paying all the bills extending the contracts that are needed, saying sorry! To everyone and selling the club in a proper manor

[Tamworthram]

7 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

You can build up debt to an owner over time and if they are not wanting it back or interest on it then it’s not a problem the problem is that 95% of owners want it back ! - at Stoke city the owner of Bet 365 has far too much money and she helps her very rich brother and father out an awful lot with the Stoke city debt - we should have got her to buy us - in fact we still could probably 

You can but, as @Big Bad Bob correctly pointed out, to build up a debt, the club must be running at a loss. Unless it’s exceptional (e.g. Covid related) wouldn’t these losses be included in the P&S calculations or are they excluded if written off by the owners?

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, Chester40 said:

A bit worried really,  the specialist had a good look and said she would need to see me again as a private consultation, apparently she was concerned about spreading as she had never seen anything so big, swollen and angry looking.

I wouldn’t have taken the wife. Keep us in the loop ?

[Rich84]

12 hours ago, DCFC1388 said:

Dont see any issue with this update. Team Derby said a PB selected end of the week, current update still falls in line with that, final bids Friday with bids assessed over the weekend with a PB selected before going to the EFL early next week to see if they approve.

I know the bid deadline was a while ago but Quantuma have mentioned other interested parties too, so we cant dismiss them if their bid ends up the best so I would expect current bids have been assessed or maybe requested to be re-done meeting a certain structure of bid, then assess them and/or any new bids too.

 

1 hour ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

I don’t think this is a real change from the Team Derby announcement.  I suspect the use of the phrases like “deadline for bids” is probably a bit misleading.  Bids will be in.  Quantuma will have asked their last set of tender clarification / negotiation questions and the deadline for those to be in is Friday. After that, the PB is selected.  The next step is to take the details of the PB and their business plan to the EFL, and they usually meet on Thursday.  That would mean a public announcement at the end of next week.

At least some sensible posts amongst the last 20hrs. The wording from Monday's mtg never said it would be announced, just interpretation,  surprised it took 3 days for the penny to drop with the journalists,  they are normally so good at usage of vocabulary to sensationalise things and report without actually having 'facts' to back up a story.

Anyway, what difference does another week make in the grand scheme of things?

Enjoy the international games as a distraction and count yourself lucky you don't live close to Russia

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Writing off past loses  on a sale can often  help Ffp and has done for example when fawaz sold Forest. 
 

however as part of our November agreement with Efl in addition to kindly agreeing to our 21 point deduction we also agreed not to include any exceptional items. So that loophole is closed for us but not anyone else as far as I know. 

Closed to us unless we ask the EFL and they agree. 

 

...So closed to us.

[Carnero]

2 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Unless it’s exceptional (e.g. Covid related) wouldn’t these losses be included in the P&S calculations YES!

or are they excluded if written off by the owners? NO!

 

[i-Ram]

1 minute ago, Carnero said:

 

[kingsy1884]

Anyone else think even if we somehow get a PB the EFL will find random 'issues' with the business plan that takes us beyond the end of the season just to make sure we are really dead?

[Wolfie]

1 hour ago, Rich84 said:

 

At least some sensible posts amongst the last 20hrs. The wording from Monday's mtg never said it would be announced, just interpretation,  surprised it took 3 days for the penny to drop with the journalists,  they are normally so good at usage of vocabulary to sensationalise things and report without actually having 'facts' to back up a story.

 

Why just write one story when you can get twice the clicks by "accidentally" mis-interpeting it the first time and then clarifying it a couple of days later in another one?

[Carnero]

13 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

They're twisting my melon, man!!!

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

You can but, as @Big Bad Bob correctly pointed out, to build up a debt, the club must be running at a loss. Unless it’s exceptional (e.g. Covid related) wouldn’t these losses be included in the P&S calculations or are they excluded if written off by the owners?

Debt can be built up - yes over a period of time you can have debt increase but stay within FFP for example a club could lose £38 million over the allowed 3 year rolling period but the over all debt would increase by about £13 million every year and if that happened for say 10 years you have a debt of around £130 million but still be fine and within FFP - crazy situation but allowed and there are plenty of football clubs in that exact situation.

[scout's dad]

[DavesaRam]

14 hours ago, Barney1991 said:

I’m guessing none of the bids met the money they wanted and there was late expressions of Interest so they’ve more than likely extended the bid deadline to see if anyone one can reach the amount to exit admin cleanly. This is just my guess of course. I do wonder why in Percy’s article few weeks back they were going to announce Ashley as PB but the. It fell through 

Didn’t the Ashley bid fall through because the EFL said”Derby County getting sorted out? We can’t have that. Here - have another rule to comply with”?

[Big Bad Bob]

3 hours ago, Carnero said:

I don't know why but you keep missing the point, the writing off of the loans does not help FFP. 

Profit from the sale of a stadium did help FFP (though the rules have now changed to exclude the profits from stadium sales too).

I'm not missing the point. Have the loans been put into the club to service debts, or to increase liquidity? I doubt that Stoke have £120m in the bank, so they will be servicing debt accrued due to losses.

[Ghost of Clough]

4 minutes ago, Big Bad Bob said:

I'm not missing the point. Have the loans been put into the club to service debts, or to increase liquidity? I doubt that Stoke have £120m in the bank, so they will be servicing debt accrued due to losses.

You are missing the point. 

You stated "look closely at the rulebook to find means such as amortisation policy or selling stadiums to get more funds into the club".
This suggests you think they've done this to assist with their P&S position, which isn't the case.

[Big Bad Bob]

26 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

You are missing the point. 

You stated "look closely at the rulebook to find means such as amortisation policy or selling stadiums to get more funds into the club".
This suggests you think they've done this to assist with their P&S position, which isn't the case.

Clearly I'm missing something. Why have they borrowed £120m? 

Revised question. If a club has cash in the bank, under FFP can they spend it if it exceeds turnover by £39m over years?

Edited March 24, 2022 by Big Bad Bob
Changed the second quesion

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Sparkle said:

Debt can be built up - yes over a period of time you can have debt increase but stay within FFP for example a club could lose £38 million over the allowed 3 year rolling period but the over all debt would increase by about £13 million every year and if that happened for say 10 years you have a debt of around £130 million but still be fine and within FFP - crazy situation but allowed and there are plenty of football clubs in that exact situation.

I'm sure you meant no offence, of course I know debt can be built up over a period of time. All I'm saying is shouldn't those losses be taken into account when calculating P&S regardless of whether the lender is now prepared to write some of it off? As you say, if it's £13m every year for the last ten years then crazy as it seems, you're still OK for P&S. Didn't Stoke make a loss of £88m in their last Accounts? I'm sure some can be attributed to Covid but not sure how much. I know they managed some clever accounting regarding the value of their players registrations and perhaps they'll get away with it that way.

[Woodley Ram]

33 minutes ago, Big Bad Bob said:

Clearly I'm missing something. Why have they borrowed £120m? 

Revised question. If a club has cash in the bank, under FFP can they spend it if it exceeds turnover by £39m over years?

a lot of it is historical debt, so if you lose £13m a season for 10 seasons the debt is £130m. Remember Stoke were in the prem as well.  So debt of £130m but still inside FFP levels.

The owner can put £100m in the bank but FFP is based on your operating income and not the owners wallet. 

If the club has no money in the back they can overspend up to 13m a season (£39m over 3) with FFP penalties.

The EFL should look at historical debt as if the owner can no longer afford it then the club goes bump, unless he makes it into his own debt or do what Stoke and others have done re shares  

[Woodley Ram]

4 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I'm sure you meant no offence, of course I know debt can be built up over a period of time. All I'm saying is shouldn't those losses be taken into account when calculating P&S regardless of whether the lender is now prepared to write some of it off? As you say, if it's £13m every year for the last ten years then crazy as it seems, you're still OK for P&S. Didn't Stoke make a loss of £88m in their last Accounts? I'm sure some can be attributed to Covid but not sure how much. I know they managed some clever accounting regarding the value of their players registrations and perhaps they'll get away with it that way.

A lot of this is down to a bad Covid policy (EFL) where the last two seasons are halved (so a BOGOF situation) and then they also get £5m a season as well. So Stoke have under Covid overspent by £44m, then take away another £5m and dah dah, £39m. Sell your stadium (as we did) and that covers the other 2 years

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, kingsy1884 said:

Anyone else think even if we somehow get a PB the EFL will find random 'issues' with the business plan that takes us beyond the end of the season just to make sure we are really dead?

No, they won't need to. Whilst I don't doubt the EFL have wanted to see us punished all along, I don't think they'll have any desire to see us completely dead and buried. Once our relegation is confirmed it will be mission  accomplished for the EFL. Having said that, I suspect it will take beyond the end of the season for the deal, including the business plan, to be finalised but not due to any petty spite on behalf of the EFL but simply because it will just take that long.