The Administration Thread

[ram59]

28 minutes ago, Wolfie20 said:

The Clubs' 1984 financial crisis was much less stressful than this.

Was that because we never had social media then? We only had 2 sources of information and that was radio Derby and the telegraph.

I do remember coming away from the ground, having lost to Plymouth, thinking that, that was the end of the club.

[RadioactiveWaste]

4 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

 

This would raise my spidie sense - ed Dawes obviously got the cold shoulder from Q when he was onto his story, which if Q are happy the money is coming they'd probably try to calm ed off. He has their phone number....

I think that's the cK camp again telling Nixon everyone is happy the money is on its way. Not Q, the EFL and others telling Nixon they're happy...

[REDCAR]

20 minutes ago, admira said:

This is a good point. Who would deal with CK again if this goes belly-up?

This classic scene sprung to mind....

[Rev]

 

 

[Gaspode]

Folk need to remember Dawes is foremost a fan - and he's historically not had an inside line from the club. He may have heard something, but equally, he may have read twitter and this board, heard there was an issue with the wage payment and jumped on the "we're all doomed" bandwagon. He's not a news journalist and I'm afraid the BBC stopped being a trusted source of news many years ago - I'd suggest taking his 'report' as an opinion piece rather than factual and wiat for CK or Q to put something out. The one thing Dawes has done is pushed them into a corner where they need to respond....

[I know nuffin]

Look at it logically. CK wants to be a sporting giant worldwide. If this falls through who is going to touch him worldwide, how many of the golf things he sponsors will want him with that reputation and how will it hit his company if the owner cannot be trusted. On top of that look at the money he has thrown away on legals as well. I think a low of water has to go under a lot of bridges today and it is not over because the fat lady is clearing her throat 

[nottingram]

Surely too many people with reputations on the line for CK to be a chancer?

Quantuma will struggle to get another gig, the EFL can’t afford for Derby to go bust with an independent regulator on the horizon, CK himself appears to have a functioning company with many links to the sporting world, even MPs have hung their hat on CK which will not be looked at kindly.

I’m probably just being optimistic, because I also know it doesn’t look great either, but I just can’t believe he’d be a time waster

[Tombo]

1 minute ago, TomBustler1884 said:

I'm not sure how any of my posting performance on here or Twitter is relevant

On this very good point, I'm sick of seeing this happen. People looking back to posts months or years ago and seeing if you were

"Pro-Mel or Anti-Mel"

"Pro-Kirchner or Anti Kirchner"

"Pro-Rooney or Anti-Rooney"

And all the various battlegrounds amongst fans. Like every thing I post is me officially "going on record" and I have to live and die by everything I say and every opinion I voice.

Man, I'm just posting. I didn't realise I was running for parliament. I thought I was just chatting shiz online about my football club for a bit of fun.

How did we get here where every individual fan is on trial for every word they've ever said?

[BramcoteRam84]

26 minutes ago, admira said:

This is a good point. Who would deal with CK again if this goes belly-up?

He’s building a business, he’s sponsoring golf tournaments and some very high profile golfers, this would backfire spectacularly on him if true. Reputations on the line here. 

[Elwood P Dowd]

If Ck doesn't have the money and cannot complete that would surely damage his business reputation in the US, that's not a small matter.

You may recover from a broken leg but you may never recover from a loss of reputation.

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd

[GB SPORTS]

5 minutes ago, ram59 said:

Was that because we never had social media then? We only had 2 sources of information and that was radio Derby and the telegraph.

I do remember coming away from the ground, having lost to Plymouth, thinking that, that was the end of the club.

That night was dreadful, and i didn't sleep a wink for three days.

[Sheff Ram]

47 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Nice way of putting it, but the checks are only as good as the cheques at the end of the day. 

Q, the EFL and anyone else (Stretford/Cook will surely have seen all this too) can only go on what the bank accounts say, if the money's there, the money's there. What else can they do? 

Very true, but "proof of funds" checks are pointless is they don't shed some light on validity/nature of the funds, beyond a number showing up on a bank statement. Otherwise it's a box tick exercise.

So for me, the burning question is:

(a) is the money there but there are issues transfering it? [hopefully with a bit more time, things gets sorted]

(b) the money is there but there are concerns about its ethicacy [may cause more siginificant delays and may lead toQ pulling the deal]

(c) the money isn't there [deal collapses and the circus carousel goes around yet again]

[DarkFruitsRam7]

13 minutes ago, Tombo said:

I just don't believe Kirchner is a chancer. Why waste as much time, energy and money as he has to get this far, only to go "nah, don't have the money actually"?

It doesn't make any sense. They've all had the same scenario, get to the end and the money "doesn't arrive". Kirchner especially has already lost millions on the deal if he walks away, it just doesn't make sense that actually he's just a penniless clown and a timewaster.

Who benefits?

Perfectly open to the view that Kirchner isn’t a chancer, but it still doesn’t make Alonso and BZI legitimate. They were absolute frauds and should have no relevance to this discussion.

[Sheff Ram]

4 minutes ago, Rev said:

 

 

Ha ha. Great minds etc. As a fellow The The fan, I thought about posting a link to this classic, but you beat me to it!

[PistoldPete]

33 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Reading  between the lines allegedly it’s about the EFL checks.

.EFL meeting today 

As I read it, it's the EFL setting the deadlines (based, according to CK himself, on the fixture list coming out in two weeks time), but it's the banks doing money laundering checks that maybe slowing things down. Whatever the reasons EFL and/or Quantuma may be about to call time on CK, if Ed Dawes is to be believed.  

[angieram]

Maybe both stories are true? 

We all know Kirchner's money came from selling bitcoin because he told us. He might genuinely have the cash, but the money laundering checks within the banking system resulted in them not being happy with where it came from. I suspect the latter is very difficult to prove - who did Kirchner sell to and how legit are they?

This is the traditional banking establishment checking on something outside of their system,; they are bound to be suspicious of anything they don't control. 

[Ram-Alf]

16 minutes ago, TomBustler1884 said:

He has said the takeover is expected to collapse today as none of Kirchner's money has arrived in the UK

And why is it expected to collapse?, Who told him...Q...I very much doubt that, As I posted someone has paid the wages, You don't throw money around and don't expect it back at some stage.

This just might come back and bite someone on the A$$

[Kernow]

As of a couple of days ago, “nobody was worried.” That’s in reference to the EFL, Quantuma & CK.

If what Nixon says is true about the financial checks, then the EFL and Quantuma will have seen proof that the money has been sent, it just hasn’t arrived. I want to give CK the benefit of the doubt and say if he’s actually sent over huge sums of money, then he isn’t a chancer. It wouldn’t be his fault that the money is being held for whatever checks they want to do.

We need to know how long it’s going to be before that money either clears or not because it was meant to have been completed a week ago now. Every day we wait for it is another day of damage done to the Club if this doesn’t go through.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

3 minutes ago, angieram said:

Maybe both stories are true? 

We all know Kirchner's money came from selling bitcoin because he told us. He might genuinely have the cash, but the money laundering checks within the banking system resulted in them not being happy with where it came from. I suspect the latter is very difficult to prove - who did Kirchner sell to and how legit are they?

This is the traditional banking establishment checking on something outside of their system,; they are bound to be suspicious of anything they don't control. 

Good points, Angie. Wouldn’t be at all surprising if the traditional systems were suspicious of crypto.

The issue I’ve always had is that he’d have to have been incredibly, incredibly successful at crypto trading to generate football owner levels of wealth through that alone. To start with, I simply didn’t believe him. Then he won me over, but now the doubts are creeping in again.

Edited June 8, 2022 by DarkFruitsRam7

[Barney1991]

Can we have a vote of no confidence in quantuma at 10 Downing Street at 12.