The Administration Thread

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

It is worrying that the people advising CK did not organise the money transfer for him, if they did organise the money transfer for CK then you certainly have to question the level of expertise they had.

My worry about CK is that he may have to funds to buy the club but does he have the funds to get us back into the Championship or sustain us in the long term, I'm not sure the club would survive another round of uncertainty\turmoil like the last few years.

I do have some sympathy with Q regarding MA, if MA wasn't prepared to provide the best return for the creditors, remember this is what the Administrators are tasked to obtain, why would they want to waste their time talking to him. Q's time was best utilised concentrating on the bid that will provide the best return for the creditors. 

Given our past record with potential "New Owners" its understandable that we all have reservations any potential "New Owners" simply because we have no way of knowing what they will do once they are in control of our club.

I have no real understanding of money laundering, but it is not the process of transfer that is the problem surely, it is more likely the provenance. Any old dud can do a money transfer. But not so easy to necessarily validate the source. Let’s say CK did make his money on Crypto, and he cashed in money a little while back into an investment account in Panama, which was reinvested into stocks, then cashed in, and then it was sent to the UK via intermediary banks. The AML authorities might be checking all the paperwork to ensure it was indeed CK who made the initial investments, created the investment gains, was the sole beneficiary of the account in Panama, was invested in legitimate stocks, and no other party has involvement - e.g. somebody else put £5m into the Panama account before he transferred. This is all HYPOTHETICAL, and purely an EXAMPLE of what they might need to check. All I am saying is that I have no idea what checks have to be done, but I do know that HSBC Bank and Barclays Bank and many others have in the past been naughty boys when accepting money transfers, and their Banking Licences in the USA are now very dependent on them proving rigourous procedures as to checking source of funds. CK could simply be a victim of bureaucracy and helpless to the speed it is dealt with (other than supplying all paperwork to evidence that it is indeed his legitimately earned monies).

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, alram said:

mike ashley is the only long term option, we need to stop chasing results and short term goals. players and managers will come and go.

we want the owner that will put us in the best position long term and thats ashley. 

we own the stadium, pay less to the creditors (even if it means -15, the CLUB is saving money) and he is showing with this process that hes not going to waste a penny of the clubs money. that is what we need whether people realise it or not. 

I take it you are not a creditor Alram?

[Elwood P Dowd]

14 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I have no real understanding of money laundering, but it is not the process of transfer that is the problem surely, it is more likely the provenance. Any old dud can do a money transfer. But not so easy to necessarily validate the source. Let’s say CK did make his money on Crypto, and he cashed in money a little while back into an investment account in Panama, which was reinvested into stocks, then cashed in, and then it was sent to the UK via intermediary banks. The AML authorities might be checking all the paperwork to ensure it was indeed CK who made the initial investments, created the investment gains, was the sole beneficiary of the account in Panama, was invested in legitimate stocks, and no other party has involvement - e.g. somebody else put £5m into the Panama account before he transferred. This is all HYPOTHETICAL, and purely an EXAMPLE of what they might need to check. All I am saying is that I have no idea what checks have to be done, but I do know that HSBC Bank and Barclays Bank and many others have in the past been naughty boys when accepting money transfers, and their Banking Licences in the USA are now very dependent on them proving rigourous procedures as to checking source of funds. CK could simply be a victim of bureaucracy and helpless to the speed it is dealt with (other than supplying all paperwork to evidence that it is indeed his legitimately earned monies).

You miss the point, if CK did employ an expert to carry out the money transfer on his behalf then his choice of “expert” is surely questionable. If he chose to carry out the transfer himself then that decision is also questionable.

What ever the case the result is a mess and does not reflect well on CK’s business acumen

 

 

Edited June 12, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd

[CBX1985]

1 minute ago, curb said:

The liquidator, doesn’t hold the badge and name, the league do, they would sell it to the highest bidder (Ashley?).

The value is still the customer base, a rebuilt club heading back up the leagues would pick up the fans left behind. Rangers have done it in recent times, they’ve kept the badge, history and support. The stadium is available and only useful to an owner if there is a football club to play in it. We would have a case for playing high up in the National League because of our facilities and support, a league in which there are already a number of professional clubs, Notts County, Chesterfield etc.

The league holds the player’s registrations, the players we have under contract would be instantly snapped up by clubs looking for a bargain. 
 

 

 

Players.  They will act in their own interests.  A fire sale doesn't work for them either.  They want the higher salary, and a free transfer release is what will get them there. They have no compulsion to accept any offer, and club and agent will want them to be released free.     

We absolutely have such a case; the issue is how you get from a to b without everyone suing. This has been Bury's problem - where do you start?  Having a case and making it reality are very different.  We just need to miss one season, and then what? Two? Five?  Might be best just to start up and begin the journey. 

Rangers was a different case, due to the pro/am divide in Scottish football (at the time - third division had no relegation), so Rangers went from Prem to third division.  That does not exist in England (nor in Scotland anymore).  it is a very long way down.  Might have dispensation, might not - who knows?

 Who would pick up the badge?  See above.  Without guarantee,  someone very small scale probably.  Forget current runners and riders.  For a very very low price.  I can actually see a community club forming (and see the benefit), with potentially fans as shareholders but with limits.  Thus, cannot be bought out and could have constraints.   The last thing any of us want if we have ten years of FA Cup extra preliminary round football to look forward to is the risk of financial problems at the end of the rainbow.  Spend what comes in. And only what comes in.  

[RoyMac5]

Anyone know what is says?

[Mckram]

1 hour ago, Mihangel said:

It seems odd to criticise CK based upon Glassdoor reviews but not to apply the same standard to, of all people, Mike Ashley?

I worked for Mike Ashley for 5 years so can form my own opinion of him. 

[Tamworthram]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

Anyone know what is says?

Not got access but can’t imagine it says anything other than stating the obvious in that they want it all settled as soon as possible (as we all do). Probably just click bait as far as I’m concerned

[PistoldPete]

9 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Anyone know what is says?

In summary, EFL are total duck jobs and will do everything they can to try and liquidate us. I haven't read it by the way. 

[Ramarena]

1 hour ago, Mihangel said:

It seems odd to criticise CK based upon Glassdoor reviews but not to apply the same standard to, of all people, Mike Ashley?

To be fair I think everyone is well aware of Ashley’s employment “practices”

[Loughborough Ram]

4 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Not got access but can’t imagine it says anything other than stating the obvious in that they want it all settled as soon as possible (as we all do). Probably just click bait as far as I’m concerned

It also wouldn't  be a major surprise to see the EFL grasping an opportunity to make things difficult for us.

It is widely reported that Quantuma and the EFL don't get on, but the governing organisation have a responsibility to prioritise ensuring our survival over petty point scoring with Quantuma. This is how we got to this point in the first place

[Tyler Durden]

14 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Anyone know what is says?

I am a self serving charlatan who strings gullible punters along with my alleged ITK horse manure posts.

Then block said punters when they call me out.

Or something along those lines. 

[Barney1991]

15 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Not got access but can’t imagine it says anything other than stating the obvious in that they want it all settled as soon as possible (as we all do). Probably just click bait as far as I’m concerned

Says that Ashley can’t lowball kirchner and has to meet his bid to exit administration after creditors agreed to this sum 

[Elwood P Dowd]

1 minute ago, Tyler Durden said:

I am a self serving charlatan who strings gullible punters along with my alleged ITK horse manure posts.

Then block said punters when they call me out.

Or something along those lines. 

Of course the EFL want Derbys bills settled,  we all want to get back to normal, whatever that is. I would be surprised at the EFL trying to apply public pressure on the Administrators, is Nixon article simply his understanding of the EFLs position?

[RoyMac5]

Just now, Elwood P Dowd said:

Of course the EFL want Derbys bills settled,  we all want to get back to normal, whatever that is. I would be surprised at the EFL trying to apply public pressure on the Administrators, is Nixon article simply his understanding of the EFLs position?

I bet he emailed Parry! ?

[Ramos]

I think I prefer Appleby or Ashley after the stories about Kirchner not being able to pay his staff on time, but for the sake of the season ahead I now sort of hope this hold up with money is true and it gets cleared tomorrow and we can crack on - and that his problems with his business are exaggerated or just some weird coincidence. 

It’s been said about 20 times but this really is the most important week for the future of DCFC. This time next week I think we will know who our new owner will be. (Or hopes) 

[Mucker1884]

17 hours ago, B4ev6is said:

Well I dont think anyone on here have said anything wrong.

 

5 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

I strongly suspect that's because our mod team have been very, very busy tidying things up!
I've seen a couple of "warnings" from @angieram, and I'm only whizzing through, trying to catch up, as I've been lacking in my attendance, due to being on holiday.

What's with the angry reaction, @RAM1966? ?‍♂️

What have I posted there, that rankles you so?

The mods have made it perfectly clear we need to be careful what we post, and who we post it about... more than once over the past day or so.  I imagine there's a reason for that?
I've also seen reference to the number of pages that this thread would be on now, if it weren't for the masses of deletions that have been made.  Let's just say it would be "considerably more"!
So clearly, folk are indeed posting stuff that the forum rules prohibit, and/or put @David at risk of a libel suit or two!

...and If it's the mods that you are angry at, for tidying things up... or "censoring" as some might call it... then you may well be in the wrong place!

... or are you just livid about the fact that I've been away on holiday, and you missed me? 
I'm ever so befuddled by your reaction, to be perfectly honest!   

[Elwood P Dowd]

6 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I bet he emailed Parry! ?

Or the other way around ?

[CBX1985]

8 minutes ago, Barney1991 said:

Says that Ashley can’t lowball kirchner and has to meet his bid to exit administration after creditors agreed to this sum 

Indeed - 100% correct.  if CK pays, he can't because he isn't going to want to match the price.  If CK doesn't pay, then the offer was actually zero so MA will offer more than that.

[i-Ram]

37 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

You miss the point, if CK did employ an expert to carry out the money transfer on his behalf then his choice of “expert” is surely questionable. If he chose to carry out the transfer himself then that decision is also questionable.

What ever the case the result is a mess and does not reflect well on CK’s business acumen

You miss my point too. He MAY have done everything right. We don’t know. He COULD be just jammed in an unforeseen AML backlog. 

[angieram]

9 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

 

What's with the angry reaction, @RAM1966? ?‍♂️

What have I posted there, that rankles you so?

The mods have made it perfectly clear we need to be careful what we post, and who we post it about... more than once over the past day or so.  I imagine there's a reason for that?
I've also seen reference to the number of pages that this thread would be on now, if it weren't for the masses of deletions that have been made.  Let's just say it would be "considerably more"!
So clearly, folk are indeed posting stuff that the forum rules prohibit, and/or put @David at risk of a libel suit or two!

...and If it's the mods that you are angry at, for tidying things up... or "censoring" as some might call it... then you may well be in the wrong place!

... or are you just livid about the fact that I've been away on holiday, and you missed me? 
I'm ever so befuddled by your reaction, to be perfectly honest!   

It's 1965 in my world.

Yeah, yeah, yeah!