The Administration Thread

[Foreveram]

10 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I can confirm I am not Ed Dawes.

Ooohhh a BR 142 Pacer...oh baby...yeah...give me the DMU rolling stock.....

 

10 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I can confirm I am not Ed Dawes.

Ooohhh a BR 142 Pacer...oh baby...yeah...give me the DMU rolling stock.....

Are you trying to derail CKs bid

[RoyMac5]

3 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

 

 

"The businessman is on his third attempt to pump in over £20million in ONE payment to save Wayne Rooney’s club after snags with anti-money laundering checks.

Kirchner first sent over the massive sum at the end of May, including the first chunk of money to the club’s creditors, and this was delayed by queries in the financial police world.

A different method was tried and failed and he reverted to the original plan that is due to see the cash in an escrow account as soon as possible."

[RadioactiveWaste]

Just now, Foreveram said:

 

Are you trying to derail CKs bid

The points are set to run him into a siding. Under the orders of the fat controller.

[CBRammette]

26 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

So how would he have attempted to get the money in without going via the AML - according to @angieram this is his third attempt (I thought only second)?

He couldnt. The anti-money laundering regs are law. Institutions and their employees must follow the rules. Employees can go to prison for up to 5 years if not followed. All financial institutions have them. I think CK is being smeared again by sources saying he tried to get around them. I work for an accountancy firm - the procedures we have to follow before being able to accept an overseas client are onerous. To assist we pay to use a clearing service which looks at various things including whether directors are politically exposed people also, etc. when clearing an overseas resident individual it takes 2-3 working days but an overseas company it is 10 working days. Nothing can do to speed up however urgent the client query is. Have no idea what financial institutions have in place but assume more onerous perhaps. Rather try and avoid the AML checks perhaps CK did something as simple as try to bring the money in in his own name rather than through a company as quicker or use a different bank as they may have different procedures that may be quicker. (Only real criticism is CK's advisers should know the checks take that long and got the money in earlier.)
We have no idea as ever but someone is trying very hard to discredit him through the media and make him the bad guy arent they? Hoping he will get hacked off and walk? Exclusivity will end? Or because there are real concerns on fund sourcing? We may never know but vilifying someone based on no evidence other than leaks from someone possibly with an agenda is crazy

[RoyMac5]

3 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

I think CK is being smeared again by sources saying he tried to get around them.

That would be Alan Nixon then? He's just again posted a 'Sun exclusive' with those details in.

Edited June 9, 2022 by RoyMac5

[rammieib]

2 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

He couldnt. The anti-money laundering regs are law. Institutions and their employees must follow the rules. Employees can go to prison for up to 5 years if not followed. All financial institutions have them. I think CK is being smeared again by sources saying he tried to get around them. I work for an accountancy firm - the procedures we have to follow before being able to accept an overseas client are onerous. To assist we pay to use a clearing service which looks at various things including whether directors are politically exposed people also, etc. when clearing an overseas resident individual it takes 2-3 working days but an overseas company it is 10 working days. Nothing can do to speed up however urgent the client query is. Have no idea what financial institutions have in place but assume more onerous perhaps. Rather try and avoid the AML checks perhaps CK did something as simple as try to bring the money in in his own name rather than through a company as quicker or use a different bank as they may have different procedures that may be quicker. (Only real criticism is CK's advisers should know the checks take that long and got the money in earlier.)
We have no idea as ever but someone is trying very hard to discredit him through the media and make him the bad guy arent they? Hoping he will get hacked off and walk? Exclusivity will end? Or because there are real concerns on fund sourcing? We may never know but vilifying someone based on no evidence other than leaks from someone possibly with an agenda is crazy

Bringing the money in earlier may have been difficult. If he waited until all contracts were signed, which is what I would do, before transferring the money, otherwise there are probably costs associated with the transfer and exchange rate losses if you moved it and then moved it back to USD at a later date.

[CBRammette]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

That would be Alan Nixon then? He's just again posted a 'Sun exclusive' with those details in.

Seems to be everyone!

[CBRammette]

1 minute ago, rammieib said:

Bringing the money in earlier may have been difficult. If he waited until all contracts were signed, which is what I would do, before transferring the money, otherwise there are probably costs associated with the transfer and exchange rate losses if you moved it and then moved it back to USD at a later date.

Yep he was probably between rock and hard place or whatever it is!

[RoyMac5]

Just now, CBRammette said:

Yep he was probably between rock and hard place or whatever it is!

Or maybe it's difficult to prove the source of his funds?

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, CBRammette said:

He couldnt. The anti-money laundering regs are law. Institutions and their employees must follow the rules. Employees can go to prison for up to 5 years if not followed. All financial institutions have them. I think CK is being smeared again by sources saying he tried to get around them. I work for an accountancy firm - the procedures we have to follow before being able to accept an overseas client are onerous. To assist we pay to use a clearing service which looks at various things including whether directors are politically exposed people also, etc. when clearing an overseas resident individual it takes 2-3 working days but an overseas company it is 10 working days. Nothing can do to speed up however urgent the client query is. Have no idea what financial institutions have in place but assume more onerous perhaps. Rather try and avoid the AML checks perhaps CK did something as simple as try to bring the money in in his own name rather than through a company as quicker or use a different bank as they may have different procedures that may be quicker. (Only real criticism is CK's advisers should know the checks take that long and got the money in earlier.)
We have no idea as ever but someone is trying very hard to discredit him through the media and make him the bad guy arent they? Hoping he will get hacked off and walk? Exclusivity will end? Or because there are real concerns on fund sourcing? We may never know but vilifying someone based on no evidence other than leaks from someone possibly with an agenda is crazy

Hypothetically he could've moved funds into a UK holding account in preparation in advance - deal falls through he just takes it home again. Or is that silly of me?

I don't know what financial cost/advantage there is in doing things the way he's done them or if he just wasn't confident enough to move money until other parts were agreed?

I do think the current panick is being stirred by the Ashley camp, but that of itself doesn't mean there was nothing to stir.

All the parties who agreed the deal and keep being promised money can be forgiven for wanting it to show up.

[BathRam72]

42 minutes ago, Dethorn said:

The Duck?

No need to swear

[EnigmaRam]

I don’t understand why he doesn’t just send it to me in £1mil chunks through western union. I’d gladly pass it on to wherever it needed to go…………..maybe!!

[SamUltraRam]

As the Pound has recently dropped in value against the US Dollar, this makes the deal cheaper for CK offsetting his cost outlay by $2m - $3m for a guess

This would at least cover some of his legal expenses I suppose - or his jet fuel !!

Edited June 9, 2022 by SamUltraRam

[May Contain Nuts]

48 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

99% of Rams fans that I know are really peed off and 50% have just about had enough. Season tickets will be the proof.

That's perfectly understandable, but it's allowing a large amount of fans to be pulled this way and that by whichever unscrupulous b****** pushes their agenda to the fore at any given time.

Fans' insecurity, their fear of losing the club is being preyed upon. People are allowing their emotions to override rational thought, lashing out at anyone who's perceived (or painted) as holding up the process.

We're being turned against each other. It genuinely concerns me just how many people appear to have eaten the BS from people who's main role so far has been to unsettle the process, influence it from the outside. There are some very silly things being said.

Previously it's been Gibson, Couhig & Parry, now it's Mike Ashley taking up the mantle; aided and abetted this time by Ed Dawes who, himself a passionate fan, has seemingly fallen into the same trap. That's maybe not his fault, he's in a difficult position where he has a duty to report what he's heard -  those playing the games above him know this, and have utilised it for their own gain.

Still, he has to be more careful with how he presents this information.  I bet he wishes he'd kept his mouth shut tbh as he's done himself no favours, and could potentially (but not necessarily, and for his sake hopefully not) have harmed Radio Derby's relationship with the club in the future.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Coconut's Beard

[jono]

32 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

 

Are you trying to derail CKs bid

It could fail on any number of points

[CBRammette]

24 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Or maybe it's difficult to prove the source of his funds?

Yep but his advisers should have had ready!

[admira]

This thread is becoming like one of those TV news stories where something major has just happened like a disaster but no-one knows any details yet so they just fill hours of time with speculation.

We should all just switch off our computers and phones and go and read a book. ?

[Ghost of Clough]

31 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

He couldnt. The anti-money laundering regs are law. Institutions and their employees must follow the rules. Employees can go to prison for up to 5 years if not followed. All financial institutions have them. I think CK is being smeared again by sources saying he tried to get around them. I work for an accountancy firm - the procedures we have to follow before being able to accept an overseas client are onerous. To assist we pay to use a clearing service which looks at various things including whether directors are politically exposed people also, etc. when clearing an overseas resident individual it takes 2-3 working days but an overseas company it is 10 working days. Nothing can do to speed up however urgent the client query is. Have no idea what financial institutions have in place but assume more onerous perhaps. Rather try and avoid the AML checks perhaps CK did something as simple as try to bring the money in in his own name rather than through a company as quicker or use a different bank as they may have different procedures that may be quicker. (Only real criticism is CK's advisers should know the checks take that long and got the money in earlier.)
We have no idea as ever but someone is trying very hard to discredit him through the media and make him the bad guy arent they? Hoping he will get hacked off and walk? Exclusivity will end? Or because there are real concerns on fund sourcing? We may never know but vilifying someone based on no evidence other than leaks from someone possibly with an agenda is crazy

Assuming the 31st was day 1, we could be looking at next Wednesday at the very latest?! ?

If we're at attempt #3 and avoiding the 10 day route, then we should have an answer by the end of the week?

[Ghost of Clough]

Just now, admira said:

This thread is becoming like one of those TV news stories where something major has just happened like a disaster but no-one knows any details yet so they just fill hours of time with speculation.

We should all just switch off our computers and phones and go and read a book. ?

I've ordered this book.

[IslandExile]

40 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

He couldnt. The anti-money laundering regs are law. Institutions and their employees must follow the rules. Employees can go to prison for up to 5 years if not followed. All financial institutions have them. I think CK is being smeared again by sources saying he tried to get around them. I work for an accountancy firm - the procedures we have to follow before being able to accept an overseas client are onerous. To assist we pay to use a clearing service which looks at various things including whether directors are politically exposed people also, etc. when clearing an overseas resident individual it takes 2-3 working days but an overseas company it is 10 working days. Nothing can do to speed up however urgent the client query is. Have no idea what financial institutions have in place but assume more onerous perhaps. Rather try and avoid the AML checks perhaps CK did something as simple as try to bring the money in in his own name rather than through a company as quicker or use a different bank as they may have different procedures that may be quicker. (Only real criticism is CK's advisers should know the checks take that long and got the money in earlier.)
We have no idea as ever but someone is trying very hard to discredit him through the media and make him the bad guy arent they? Hoping he will get hacked off and walk? Exclusivity will end? Or because there are real concerns on fund sourcing? We may never know but vilifying someone based on no evidence other than leaks from someone possibly with an agenda is crazy

 

7 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Assuming the 31st was day 1, we could be looking at next Wednesday at the very latest?! ?

If we're at attempt #3 and avoiding the 10 day route, then we should have an answer by the end of the week?

And from other posters.....

The expertise on this forum is great - we could run a football club.

Mel, you should've come on here more often. Kirchy baby are you listening?

Second thoughts: we should leave team selection to the manager. Well depending on the manager. OK, we should have a say in the appointment of managers.