Jump to content

The Administration Thread


Boycie

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

I think pretty much every team in top 6 league 1 had a goal scorer of 15 or more - Derby need Lawrence and another striker to compete I think. Need a goalscorer. 

No chance of Lawrence staying 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RAM1966 said:

You can pay 25p if you pay it straight away or its 35p if you spread it over 3 years to aviod -15pts.  Sorry, but this all points to a nan who wants to spend as little as possible.

It makes financial sense to pay the 25p uo front though as it erdaicates the debt straight away and will save a further 10p in the pound on all non footballing creditors.

Its the same with purchasing the ground, why pay rent on it year on year if you have the funds to purchase.  Once Derby are back on thier feet the stadium price will surely increase.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but, both actions seem a bit of an odd decision, costing him more money in the longer term!

By paying over 3 years, it gives the opportunity to generate and use club funding rather than his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RAM1966 said:

You can pay 25p if you pay it straight away or its 35p if you spread it over 3 years to aviod -15pts.  Sorry, but this all points to a nan who wants to spend as little as possible.

It makes financial sense to pay the 25p uo front though as it erdaicates the debt straight away and will save a further 10p in the pound on all non footballing creditors.

Its the same with purchasing the ground, why pay rent on it year on year if you have the funds to purchase.  Once Derby are back on thier feet the stadium price will surely increase.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but, both actions seem a bit of an odd decision, costing him more money in the longer term!

Businessman plans to pay the lowest price he can for a business and wants that business to pay its own debts? Absolutely shocking news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Loughborough Ram said:

Can't help thinking that we have been well and truly stitched up by the EFL.

 

They were happy to stand by and watch Morris steal Pride Park off the club, and now they are at the forefront aiding him in holding the club to ransom by insisting that they will only sign the takeover off once a deal has been done on the ground.

 

Feels like we've just been held up by Dick Turpin

The EFL had no jurisdiction to prevent MM buying the Stadium. Many other clubs have sold their stadiums to raise funds.

As for signing off CKs purchase, it is an EFL condition for exiting administration that there has to be proof of a Stadium for 10 years. Whether that be owned or leased.

CK himself has insisted that the deal only happens if the Stadium is resolved.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RipleyRich said:

The EFL had no jurisdiction to prevent MM buying the Stadium. Many other clubs have sold their stadiums to raise funds.

As for signing off CKs purchase, it is an EFL condition for exiting administration that there has to be proof of a Stadium for 10 years. Whether that be owned or leased.

CK himself has insisted that the deal only happens if the Stadium is resolved.

 

But Efl have said much more than that . Parry has said that the stadium is and always has been the biggest stumbling block.

which is total baalocks. 
 

the stadium is by far the biggest tangible asset on offer and the only one that is not totally engulfed by debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RipleyRich said:

The EFL had no jurisdiction to prevent MM buying the Stadium. Many other clubs have sold their stadiums to raise funds.

As for signing off CKs purchase, it is an EFL condition for exiting administration that there has to be proof of a Stadium for 10 years. Whether that be owned or leased.

CK himself has insisted that the deal only happens if the Stadium is resolved.

 

Doesn’t MM already own the Stadium with effectively an MSD mortgage !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the clubs recent history of bad owners.

Robert Maxwell, 3 amigos, Mel Morris, it is great that we now have a owner who appears to have his head screwed on in CK, and the club should pay for itself.

Last season taught us one thing how important the academy is to DC and that it should be the way forward in our revival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Nixon said it was £45 m needed to avoid a points deduction. £20m for the club and £25 m for the stadium /Msd. 

of course Nixon ain’t the most reliable of sources but he does get stuff both from Kirchner and the Efl. 
 

do I take it I should add football creditors and insolvency expenses to your scenario figures above to get to a figure comparable to Nixon’s?

 

It's something like that. I didn't even bother checking the actual figures. It was just a basic example (although probably badly worded) to show how 35% could actually be cheaper than 25%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RAM1966 said:

You can pay 25p if you pay it straight away or its 35p if you spread it over 3 years to aviod -15pts.  Sorry, but this all points to a nan who wants to spend as little as possible.

It makes financial sense to pay the 25p uo front though as it erdaicates the debt straight away and will save a further 10p in the pound on all non footballing creditors.

Its the same with purchasing the ground, why pay rent on it year on year if you have the funds to purchase.  Once Derby are back on thier feet the stadium price will surely increase.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but, both actions seem a bit of an odd decision, costing him more money in the longer term!

Go back and read my earlier response to you.

A smart man doesn't throw money around. Would you spend £50 if you can get the same thing for £40?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

But Efl have said much more than that . Parry has said that the stadium is and always has been the biggest stumbling block.

which is total baalocks. 
 

the stadium is by far the biggest tangible asset on offer and the only one that is not totally engulfed by debt.

The Stadium IS the biggest stumbling block and that is why CK has insisted that sorting tit out is written into his purchase contract.

The Stadium is a tangled mess. Owned by MM, loans on the clubs books guaranteed against it, it's a huge problem and needs the loans and guarantees to be resolved before anyone will buy it or the club.

 

Edited by RipleyRich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Curtains said:

Well why would he buy it if he owns it or do you mean he pays the mortgage/loan off and keeps it and the leases it out ! 

I think we are getting confused here. I was replying to the post blaming the EFL for allowing MM to buy the Stadium and separate it from the club.

And also blaming the EFL for instance that the Stadium issue is sorted before approval of CKs deal.

They had no jurisdiction to prevent the sale in the first place and insistence on a Stadium deal being in place is an EFL rule.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RipleyRich said:

I think we are getting confused here. I was replying to the post blaming the EFL for allowing MM to buy the Stadium and separate it from the club.

And also blaming the EFL for instance that the Stadium issue is sorted before approval of CKs deal.

They had no jurisdiction to prevent the sale in the first place and insistence on a Stadium deal being in place is an EFL rule.

 

Oh right you are referring to when he initially bought the Stadium.

I’m not sure it’s right that he was allowed to not put the Stadium into administration as well as the club as it has made buying the club extremely difficult.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, RipleyRich said:

By paying over 3 years, it gives the opportunity to generate and use club funding rather than his own.

if his business plan is to spend £60million over the next 2 years for example, then given the expenditure needed to get the squads back into some sort of shape then it makes no sense to consume £25mil of that pot straight away. It is better to spend only £11mil paying off debt in each of years 1 and 2.

The biggest outlays are right now. Paying the debts and rebuilding the squads. The more that its consumed now paying off the debts means there is less available to invest in the squads. Invest the money in the right players and we get promoted leading to an increase in revenue and likelihood of being able to sell some of the players who got us promoted but aren't championship standard at a profit. Both revenue streams helping to mitigate the extra 10% of debt that needs to be paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, RipleyRich said:

The Stadium IS the biggest stumbling block and that is why CK has insisted that sorting tit out is written into his purchase contract.

The Stadium is a tangled mess. Owned by MM, loans on the clubs books guaranteed against it, it's a huge problem and needs the loans and guarantees to be resolved before anyone will but it or the club.

 

It is the last remaining issue. It is not a stumbling block. The only issue is one of timing which is critical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...