The Administration Thread

[G STAR RAM]

16 minutes ago, Hanny said:

Thank You. I will have a look.  
 

I am not an expert in UK based contracts/deals. A majority of my experience is based in the America’s/Canada. But that would be surprising to me if all financial details are indeed public. Perhaps it is. That would be rather unique in my experience. 
 

My hesitation is based on: If ALL financial details are indeed public, then why are there conflicting reports, and why would there be any need for ‘shadow games’ or positioning when it comes to negotiations. It should be bog-standard if the numbers are as available as logging into a website. 
 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00049139/filing-history

Latest filing dated 24 April 2022 lists all of the creditors. 

 

[IslandExile]

If there really are three submitted bids, and possibly another incoming from Ashley, then - fer chrisekes - set a deadline (eg tomorrow at 3pm) and select the best bid.

If it means 15 point deduction, so be it. Ownership or lease of the ground. Just get on with it. This has gone on long enough.

Quantuma, take your paycheck and get out.

Enough is enough is enough.

(And if Ashley's court action leads to an injunction preventing the sale, cross that bridge when and if you get to it; don't feckin'wait for it)

Edited June 16, 2022 by IslandExile
Court injunction

[jono]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

MSD aren't an unsecured creditor so aren't in the 25/35% group. Someone has to pay the full £20.5m... there is no way around that unless someone can get uncompromising pictures of the relevant MSD employee.

You lend money with or without security. Security is against assets of the company in the normal course of events.
I understand that, but as far as DCFC are concerned they must be an ordinary creditor because DCFChas no assets to offer as security. This might not be the case  from their perspective in that they are “secured”  because they have is a debenture on the stadium owned by mr Morris (not DCFC)  .. or have I misunderstood something ?

[CBRammette]

1 hour ago, SaffyRam said:

Just. One. Normal. Day. ?? ?

Its just unbelievable isnt it. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Perhaps his bid will more or less match Appleby’s but with £3m less for Q’s fees and £2m more for unsecureds 

Seems to be what he’s shaping up for 

He’s a thug 

If he is a thug which I think as a statement at the very minimum borders on libel, then he is one who in his 13 seasons running Newcastle spent 11 seasons in the Premier League and the other two winning the Championship twice. In our current desperate state if he wins the battle to take us over I would snap his hand off and forever be thankful. Beggars can’t be choosers.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Brailsford Ram

[Rev]

25 minutes ago, TuffLuff said:

We are desperate for some proper investigative journalism, but it does seem like most reputable journalists keep an arms length away from the story. When things get desperate we might get a tweet, but no one is really looking in to what’s happening. 

Unfortunately, even a proper investigative journalist, like David Conn for example, wouldn't be able to get hold of the info they'd need to print much of a story right now, due to legal complexities and NDA's, and the relatively short time frame events have unfolded over. 

It would surprise me if someone wasn't taking a good long look at the story, gathering evidence and talking to the parties involved though, it's just we'll not here of it for a while. 

It's got all the elements of a great long read article, podcast series or even a book. 

Local boy done good buys childhood club on verge of promotion, with millions he's made from a newtech Unicorn.

Is he naive and exploited by the football sharks he's now swimming with, or an impossible egotistical maniac who won't listen to good advice? 

A figure deserving of pity or scorn, or a machivellian (sic) presence who still controls our destiny even now? 

Throw in the managers, pissed up players, mums as scouts, players as paid embassadors, dodgy accountants, fake sheiks, drones, free season tickets, etc etc.

In fact, if no one else does it, I might have a crack.

[Crewton]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Did CK bid before being made PB? But anyway being made PB meant you got to examine the books in detail didn't it? You'd not bid before then would you?

Of course, it would be conditional on reviewing information not disclosed up to that point but, given that the quantum of debts and liabilities is contained in the Statement of Affairs, it should have been possible to prepare a formal bid that set out the structure of his proposal. I'm wondering on what basis he was expecting to be appointed. Quantuma's alleged tactic of trying to force him to submit a formal bid doesn't appear unreasonable to me. 

[Abu Derby]

Quantanama need kicking into touch right away. I’ve said it before, they aren’t fit for purpose and are ruining our football club. They don’t give a toss what happens to us. Get rid. Now. 

[hintonsboots]

[europia]

29 minutes ago, Dave Mackay Ate My Hamster said:

So, if we accept some of the known and oft-quoted figures, it would appear as many as 8 (reported) interested parties are haggling over just a couple £million, possibly as little as £3-5m.

Crypto boy could have got the deal over the line if his smoke and mirrors £21.4m had been accepted by any real clearing authority, plus  35% over 3 years, so probably £26m - but without the stadium. With stadium - £48m

Appleby's consortium offers slightly north of £40m but wants the stadium. 

Big Mike starts his usual low-balling offer at £28m, hoping he'll be the last one at the table.

Given that the stadium is oft quoted as costing a potential buyer anything between £20.5-22m...

So if the known valuation of the offers are £40m and £48m, surely a middle figure of £44m should nail it?

And 8 parties are pissing about arguing plus  or minus that £44m figure. i.e £4m

Two very wealthy reported interested individuals and other reported consortiums.

Fighting over £4m each way. Or if you don't want the stadium, £20m will do it.

I suppose that's how rich men get rich, haggling over a mere 10%....

From the perspective of the potential new owners, the reality is, the purchase of DCFC doesn't make business sense, due to the level of (increasing) debt and the situation with the stadium. The risk to reward ratio is not favourable and so each and everyone of the reported interested parties are, to an extent, embarking on a business deal that most, if not all financial experts would say 'keep well away'.

So it comes back to the question of motivation. There is not a clear answer, but some wealthy folk like to raise their profile, hence the need for expensive cars, yachts, private jets etc. Perhaps add a football club to that list? There is a slightly different take regarding Mike Ashley, who after a long game, made a profit from the (protracted) sale of NUFC. Having said that, Newcastle were in much better shape than Derby County, when MA took over. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

27 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Yup. What if we’d had no bidders at all, no one willing to pay anything with Q trying to drum up non existent interest from around the world? Or what if the sheikh and alonso were it?  That would be a bigger fiasco.
From the outside it looks as if we have 3 possible bidders (at least) all of whom have good credentials for running a football club, one of them is so keen on winning our business that he’s prepared to threaten to take the decision makers to court in order to make winning more likely. Whether it will ever get to court is a whole different matter. This is a negotiating tactic first and foremost to put pressure on.

You must work in marketing

[Biley66]

5 minutes ago, Abu Derby said:

Quantanama need kicking into touch right away. I’ve said it before, they aren’t fit for purpose and are ruining our football club. They don’t give a toss what happens to us. Get rid. Now. 

They do seem slightly incompetent tbh

[sage]

1 hour ago, Millenniumram said:

Can’t even bear to read all the way through that Mail article. This whole thing has been a shamble, from all involved. A founding member of the football league could die because of incompetence from all parties. There needs to be an inquest into why on earth Kirchner was allowed to waste so much of our time. Both Quantuma, and the EFL, should have stopped him.

On what evidence should they have stopped him?

He showed proof of funds, pasedthe fir and proper person test and give the highest bid re creditors 

[Hanny]

18 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00049139/filing-history

Latest filing dated 24 April 2022 lists all of the creditors. 

 

Thank you again. I will take a look, when able. Quick blush on the 'statement of proposal' doc, and  'Progress' doc (2021 and 2022)- these are 'offered' numbers, not open book numbers. But I may very well be misreading these sums. These look like standard accounting numbers offered to the public. Basically, any public entity will have to submit some level of ledger figures to be tracked, but that is never the full scope. AGAIN, I may be fully out of my depth in regard to how UK entities are accounted for. 

But it's nice to look over some numbers ? ?

[Archied]

57 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

 

Sorry but for a supposedly intelligent kid with a good career ahead of him you aren't half susceptible to fall for any old crap that backs up your opinion. 

Read the posts from sensible posters since this story came out, they can see straight through it. 

Going after me on the basis of something Mike f****** Ashley alleges, which hasn't even be proven, really? 

As I said all along, IF Quantuma have done anything it'll come out in the wash and they'll pay the consequences- this however is not 'the wash' it's another piece of grandstanding for idiots to fall for without question, alleged against an easy target for the personal gain of someone we all already know to be an unscrupulous b******. 

Get a grip. 

Isn’t it unproven either way but you state your view of it as fact ,,which is probably the same and in fact worse than what you’ve pulled the poster up for?

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

1 hour ago, SaffyRam said:

Just. One. Normal. Day. ?? ?

This.is. the. new. NORMAL. ?

I'd settle for a bad day as a sign of improvements

[PistoldPete]

43 minutes ago, Red Ram said:

You're missing the point. In fact you're making exactly the same mistake Quantuma did. The cross class cram was entirely legal but that's not the only test. The other test was the EFLs insolvency policy. We needed a solution that both brought us out of administration and allowed us to retain our golden share. The cross class cram solution delivered the former but ignored the latter.

Your point about "claims during insolvency period" is disingenuous because it ignores the fact that "Derby County FC continues to trade via a new limited company, with the old one being liquidated along with the unpaid portion of all debts.". So this would mean that Boro and Wycombe would be permanently denied the opportunity to pursue their claims because the legal entity their claim was against (the old one) would no longer exist. Their claims would have been completely extinguished, not just postponed.

As a Derby fan, I don't personally care about that any more than you do but it should be obvious that the EFL could never have agreed to that. None of the potential bidders were prepared to move forward until Morris resolved the Boro claim. It seems reasonable to assume they were acting on legal advice. Your argument appears to be that the EFL should have ignored similar legal advice and been prepared to take the risk that none of the bidders were prepared to take. It's just not a reasonable expectation.

I'll be honest though. When i first heard that the EFL had blocked Quantuma's proposal in January I did start to think that you might all have been right all along and that the EFL really did have a vendetta against Derby and wanted to see us liquidated. But once I looked at it in detail it became clear that the evidence just doesn't support that conclusion.

Unfortunately it's our club that's been at fault at every stage. First Mel Morris and then Quantuma.

Hopefully better days lie ahead for all of us.

Red Ram you talk with such authority about EFL insolvency policy. Have you read it? How can you say what it says and how legally binding it might be when it isn't published anywhere.  

EFL's own  rules stated that Boro were not allowed to make claims based on Derby''s alleged breach of FFP... it was only for EFL to bring such claims.

So whether it's insolvency law or EFL own rules Boro couldnt bring their claim.

And if Boro didnt like it its up to them to challenge it, not for EFL to threaten Derby with expulsion just because Quantuma were fulfilling their legal duty to the creditors.

 

[kevinhectoring]

45 minutes ago, Red Ram said:

You're missing the point. In fact you're making exactly the same mistake Quantuma did. The cross class cram was entirely legal but that's not the only test. The other test was the EFLs insolvency policy. We needed a solution that both brought us out of administration and allowed us to retain our golden share. The cross class cram solution delivered the former but ignored the latter.

Your point about "claims during insolvency period" is disingenuous because it ignores the fact that "Derby County FC continues to trade via a new limited company, with the old one being liquidated along with the unpaid portion of all debts.". So this would mean that Boro and Wycombe would be permanently denied the opportunity to pursue their claims because the legal entity their claim was against (the old one) would no longer exist. Their claims would have been completely extinguished, not just postponed.

As a Derby fan, I don't personally care about that any more than you do but it should be obvious that the EFL could never have agreed to that. None of the potential bidders were prepared to move forward until Morris resolved the Boro claim. It seems reasonable to assume they were acting on legal advice. Your argument appears to be that the EFL should have ignored similar legal advice and been prepared to take the risk that none of the bidders were prepared to take. It's just not a reasonable expectation.

I'll be honest though. When i first heard that the EFL had blocked Quantuma's proposal in January I did start to think that you might all have been right all along and that the EFL really did have a vendetta against Derby and wanted to see us liquidated. But once I looked at it in detail it became clear that the evidence just doesn't support that conclusion.

Unfortunately it's our club that's been at fault at every stage. First Mel Morris and then Quantuma.

Hopefully better days lie ahead for all of us.

An elegant explanation of the cram down point, thank you 
 

But is your second para right? I think the cram down extinguishes the claim by court order. I’ve not seen that it’s proposed that there will be a business transfer to a new entity - or did I miss something ?

[CBX1985]

46 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

MSD aren't an unsecured creditor so aren't in the 25/35% group. Someone has to pay the full £20.5m... there is no way around that unless someone can get uncompromising pictures of the relevant MSD employee.

Indeed.  However, there is probably a chance they end up owning part of/most of the stadium (as a means of MM keeping it's value), but us carrying on using it on lease.   

[CBX1985]

38 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

If there really are three submitted bids, and possibly another incoming from Ashley, then - fer chrisekes - set a deadline (eg tomorrow at 3pm) and select the best bid.

If it means 15 point deduction, so be it. Ownership or lease of the ground. Just get on with it. This has gone on long enough.

Quantuma, take your paycheck and get out.

Enough is enough is enough.

(And if Ashley's court action leads to an injunction preventing the sale, cross that bridge when and if you get to it; don't feckin'wait for it)

Q work for Creditors.  Creditors want this to carry on.  They want a white knight to want to pay what they would like rather than what they are going to get.