The Administration Thread

[kevinhectoring]

28 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Well that just seems pure guesswork. We are all guessing to be fair, but that doesn't seem like even the best guess we have had.

This guy has assessed the mountain of evidence that has piled up and put forward the explanation that best fits.    Is that guesswork ?  I think it’s a good note. 

[PistoldPete]

1 minute ago, GboroRam said:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, as it's fairly deep into legalese and that's certainly not my area of expertise. But Parry's comments to individual people emailing him don't sound to me like they are demanding the Wycombe and Boro threats be settled - not in as many words. It sounds like he's saying there's a standard process in EFL rules which means we should be looking at the internal mediation.

Wycombe and Boro aren't claims - there's no legal reason that we have to consider their request for payment. It's solely down to the EFL rules that say members with grievances need to use their framework to resolve them, and they won't allow the sale to proceed until these grievances are resolved.

So why don't the Administrators push the EFL to do that, at the earliest opportunity?

Then the EFL have to decide if the claims have merit - and if they decide they do, they truly have opened pandora's box on themselves. I think that could be the death knell of the football league, as every team can make a claim that something cost them points, which cost them places, which cost them money and promotion.

I also wonder how our wage bill is so high, when we've got such a small group of players with a lot of youth and academy stars in there. Surely they aren't a huge overhead on our wage bill?

 

Our  player wage bill isn't high Gboro in Championship terms. With four more players off the wage bill it's now approaching £10 million, which is about 10% of Fulham's wage bill. No wonder they are getting cricket scores (well England cricket scores) every game.

[atherstoneram]

6 hours ago, peakram said:

Surely latest results would encourage a genuinely interested bidder to step up now while there is a realistic chance to stay in this division and keep the squad together / add to it rather than wait until it’s dismantled and face the prospect of a few seasons in the lower leagues.
I agree hypothetical claims from Boro and Wycombe really shouldn’t be brought into the current situation by the EFL which only complicates matters and is frankly pie in the sky stuff. I’d think the chances of such claims proving fruitful would normally be virtually nil but in Derbys situation with time of the essence maybe these clubs are thinking they can get an easy windfall out of it.

Morris could at least do his bit by stepping in and sorting it if he really cared about the club so much but would involve swallowing his pride which I can’t see happening. Doesn’t help that the Boro CEO is apparently part of the EFL committee I guess.

Very proud of the efforts of the lads in the face of adversity.

MM could come clean as to why they think they have a claim.

[BramcoteRam84]

16 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Agree with much of what you say but this statement is incorrect and doesn’t reflect the effect of the moratorium 

I expected I would be picked up on something without detailed knowledge of of the this area. So while I agree with you my statement was incorrect, doesn’t change fact administrators are entitled to reject any claim raised in administration period and they would have to go and pursue through insolvency courts and therefore not be considered as part of the debt. Yet the EFL is both not allowing the admins to reject the claim and seems to be inferring its a football creditors debt (though we don’t truly know if that’s the case)

[BramcoteRam84]

13 minutes ago, Gritstone Ram said:

I think we all know where the blame lies but he’s living it up on the Sandbanks. He’s certainly not been seen in Derbyshire.

Mel is to blame we all know that but this club would be saved now without loss of further players but for the unreasonable actions of Boro Wycombe and the EFL

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

This guy has assessed the mountain of evidence that has piled up and put forward the explanation that best fits.    Is that guesswork ?  I think it’s a good note. 

Except the admin team had said that the Boro and Wycombe claims didn't need to hold up the announcement of preferred bidder as the  new owner can pick those up. So that doesn't stack up with what BAWT has said. And a restrucuring plan (if that is what it comes to and we don't know that it will) requires Court approval so it's not as if it doesn't go to Court... so what's the problem there? 

[PistoldPete]

6 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

Mel is to blame we all know that but this club would be saved now without loss of further players but for the unreasonable actions of Boro Wycombe and the EFL

Exactly. EFL v Admin spat wouldn't exist without the Boro and Wycombe claims. It's criminal that these are still holding this up and we are hanging by a knife edge because of that.

Edited January 16, 2022 by PistoldPete

[SaffyRam]

13 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, as it's fairly deep into legalese and that's certainly not my area of expertise. But Parry's comments to individual people emailing him don't sound to me like they are demanding the Wycombe and Boro threats be settled - not in as many words. It sounds like he's saying there's a standard process in EFL rules which means we should be looking at the internal mediation.

Wycombe and Boro aren't claims - there's no legal reason that we have to consider their request for payment. It's solely down to the EFL rules that say members with grievances need to use their framework to resolve them, and they won't allow the sale to proceed until these grievances are resolved.

So why don't the Administrators push the EFL to do that, at the earliest opportunity?

Then the EFL have to decide if the claims have merit - and if they decide they do, they truly have opened pandora's box on themselves. I think that could be the death knell of the football league, as every team can make a claim that something cost them points, which cost them places, which cost them money and promotion.

I also wonder how our wage bill is so high, when we've got such a small group of players with a lot of youth and academy stars in there. Surely they aren't a huge overhead on our wage bill?

 

That’s fine, except they seem to be suggesting that their internal rules are more important than UK insolvency legislation. And they are preventing us from exiting admin and paying creditors, including HMRC. I think they’re asking for trouble and I hope they get it.

[i-Ram]

13 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

You are a monkey I-ram

1 your most vocal contributions recently involved you stating that the problem was not the Gibson claims. 

2 MM has the ability still to make this go away by defeasing the 2 claims. That’s all this note says, it says no more than “MM has a lot of money “. If you’re claiming that’s what you meant when arguing that he retains significant influence well that’s a stretch. Because your posts show you were talking about the stadium 

I am a monkey Kev ?. I also have always caveated most of what I say too, based on either my limited experience or not having the full facts available.

Morris having the stadium is exactly the point I make now, and was making two weeks ago.

He owns (arguably) a £80m asset, on which there is some security to support loans from MSD to the club. Let’s call that debt £25m. So the surplus equity is £55m (again assuming an arguable current value of the stadium). He supposedly wants £20m more for the new owner to have the stadium, and therefore he would be giving up £35m of value he might be entitled to as owner.

A preferred bidder l understand is prepared to pay c£50m to satisfy the club’s creditors, which include MSD in full, football creditors in full (not inc. Boro and Wycombe), an agreed % to HMRC and 25% to unsecured creditors. 

If MSD are repaid as above the security they have on the stadium goes away, and Morris has an unencumbered asset now, which he still wants 20m for. The same preferred bidder as part of the process might be happy to cough up £20m to Morris - in all honesty he ain’t going to clear the debts without that agreement. But the preferred bidder doesn’t currently seem likely to want to pay anything if they could be at huge risk to more costs to Boro and Wycombe. So the preferred buyer might say to Morris, I will pay you £20m if you indemnify the club against any potential claims. I mentioned this a couple of weeks ago - the money Morris is asking for is held in escrow and will only be paid over to him if there if the LAP says there is no claim to answer (or say £10m is paid over to him if the Club has to settle the claim at £10m). Do you follow?

So as current stadium owner he has significant influence over the way forward, including if he wanted to repaying the MSD loan himself (it has the funds) and owning/keeping the stadium unencumbered. He could increase or lower his asking price to the preferred buyer, he could sell the Stadium to another third party if the MSD debt is cleared, or he could indemnify the position as I have outlined above.

Does this all make sense as I am beginning to think I am cracking up.

[Ramarena]

23 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, as it's fairly deep into legalese and that's certainly not my area of expertise. But Parry's comments to individual people emailing him don't sound to me like they are demanding the Wycombe and Boro threats be settled - not in as many words. It sounds like he's saying there's a standard process in EFL rules which means we should be looking at the internal mediation.

Wycombe and Boro aren't claims - there's no legal reason that we have to consider their request for payment. It's solely down to the EFL rules that say members with grievances need to use their framework to resolve them, and they won't allow the sale to proceed until these grievances are resolved.

So why don't the Administrators push the EFL to do that, at the earliest opportunity?

Then the EFL have to decide if the claims have merit - and if they decide they do, they truly have opened pandora's box on themselves. I think that could be the death knell of the football league, as every team can make a claim that something cost them points, which cost them places, which cost them money and promotion.

I also wonder how our wage bill is so high, when we've got such a small group of players with a lot of youth and academy stars in there. Surely they aren't a huge overhead on our wage bill?

 

Yep I think calling bluffs is our only way out.

The only other way is to wait for Feb after our squad has been decimated, then they release their grip, go back on their “rules” and magically allow a PR to be announced, as they will have got the pound of flesh they wanted!

Edited January 16, 2022 by Ramarena

[LeedsCityRam]

27 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, as it's fairly deep into legalese and that's certainly not my area of expertise. But Parry's comments to individual people emailing him don't sound to me like they are demanding the Wycombe and Boro threats be settled - not in as many words. It sounds like he's saying there's a standard process in EFL rules which means we should be looking at the internal mediation.

Wycombe and Boro aren't claims - there's no legal reason that we have to consider their request for payment. It's solely down to the EFL rules that say members with grievances need to use their framework to resolve them, and they won't allow the sale to proceed until these grievances are resolved.

So why don't the Administrators push the EFL to do that, at the earliest opportunity?

Then the EFL have to decide if the claims have merit - and if they decide they do, they truly have opened pandora's box on themselves. I think that could be the death knell of the football league, as every team can make a claim that something cost them points, which cost them places, which cost them money and promotion.

I also wonder how our wage bill is so high, when we've got such a small group of players with a lot of youth and academy stars in there. Surely they aren't a huge overhead on our wage bill?

 

He has indicated that the case can be held post-sale so if we take him at his word, it isn't holding up the sale.

I believe the issue here centres around the term 'compromising claims' being bandied about - I think Quantuma have offered both clubs a nominal fee & then sought a restructuring plan rather than a conventional creditors agreement which basically compresses creditors & gives them no further recourse for claims. This is what the EFL are objecting to under pressure from the 2 clubs - they are happy to let a new owner deal with the cases.

Given the apparent surprise of the EFL's position on Thursday/Friday, I suspect Quantuma have probably assured prospective buyers they could manage the claims this way but it now re-opens two questions; 1) will prospective buyers be brave enough to take the club on with these claims still open knowing how weak they are & 2) will indemnity be offered to them? With respect to 2), this could only be done by Mel Morris & given these claims are really about him (certainly Gibson claim is personal to some extent) then he should do the right thing & indemnify the preferred bidder against the unlikely prospect of having to pay up.

Edited January 16, 2022 by LeedsCityRam

[RoyMac5]

16 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

I expected I would be picked up on something without detailed knowledge of of the this area. So while I agree with you my statement was incorrect, doesn’t change fact administrators are entitled to reject any claim raised in administration period and they would have to go and pursue through insolvency courts and therefore not be considered as part of the debt. Yet the EFL is both not allowing the admins to reject the claim and seems to be inferring its a football creditors debt (though we don’t truly know if that’s the case)

Parry's emails state that the claims pre-date administration.

[PistoldPete]

10 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I am a monkey Kev ?. I also have always caveated most of what I say too, based on either my limited experience or not having the full facts available.

Morris having the stadium is exactly the point I make now, and was making two weeks ago.

He owns (arguably) a £80m asset, on which there is some security to support loans from MSD to the club. Let’s call that debt £25m. So the surplus equity is £55m (again assuming an arguable current value of the stadium). He supposedly wants £20m more for the new owner to have the stadium, and therefore he would be giving up £35m of value he might be entitled to as owner.

A preferred bidder l understand is prepared to pay c£50m to satisfy the club’s creditors, which include MSD in full, football creditors in full (not inc. Boro and Wycombe), an agreed % to HMRC and 25% to unsecured creditors. 

If MSD are repaid as above the security they have on the stadium goes away, and Morris has an unencumbered asset now, which he still wants 20m for. The same preferred bidder as part of the process might be happy to cough up £20m to Morris - in all honesty he ain’t going to clear the debts without that agreement. But the preferred bidder doesn’t currently seem likely to want to pay anything if they could be at huge risk to more costs to Boro and Wycombe. So the preferred buyer might say to Morris, I will pay you £20m if you indemnify the club against any potential claims. I mentioned this a couple of weeks ago - the money Morris is asking for is held in escrow and will only be paid over to him if there if the LAP says there is no claim to answer (or say £10m is paid over to him if the Club has to settle the claim at £10m). Do you follow?

So as current stadium owner he has significant influence over the way forward, including if he wanted to repaying the MSD loan himself (it has the funds) and owning/keeping the stadium unencumbered. He could increase or lower his asking price to the preferred buyer, he could sell the Stadium to another third party if the MSD debt is cleared, or he could indemnify the position as I have outlined above.

Does this all make sense as I am beginning to think I am cracking up.

But this is guesswork iram. PPS is probably not worth £80 m now, after COVID has hit and with a distressed tenant .

The "fact" that Morris wants £20 m is based on Nixon/Kirchner neither are reliable sources. ANd is that £20m for his equity or £20m for the gross value? Who knows? 

There's no evidence this is the stumbling block. There's a clear disconnect bewteen EFL and admin team over the Boro / Wycombe claims , and we dont know the detail of that either.

Let's just agree that if Morris has some spare cash he should chip in. And move on.Hopefully anyone with spare cash, Niall or Gadsby or whoever would chip in to save us. We surely cannot go under for want of a few million.      
 

Edited January 16, 2022 by PistoldPete

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Parry's emails state that the claims pre-date administration.

They can't continue with claims during administration. ANd which Parry emails are we talking about? he seems to have sent a lot. 

[Indy]

6 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Parry's emails state that the claims pre-date administration.

I wondered about that? I’m still not aware that they have actually started arbitration or filed legal papers - so there’s no official claim, even now? They may have made a ‘claim’ (ie talked about the possibility of seeking compensation) before administration, but that’s not actionable. 
 

If they were due money, they would have been on the creditors list from November, and when they weren’t, they should have kicked up a stink about it - except they couldn’t because … they have made an official claim. 

[Oldben]

On 15/01/2022 at 14:46, Oldben said:

I find it interesting that the 17 day window to stop liquidation, handed down by efl coincides with the transfer window.

It means the efl are demanding that the Derby sell their best players for a lower price, as top price will not guarantee, that the sale goes through before the window closes.

Even once Derby sell players, the transfer embargo isn't lifted so the efl gives Derby zero chance of signing replacements.

Efl know Derby must sell to raise funds to get through to the end of the season, so they give a 17 day window.

Plus they know any buyer will not complete the sale in 17 days.

The efl are sick of Derby doing well after the points penalty that they handed down, they don't want Derby to survive and so they reduce the teams strength still further by forcing the sale of best players.

The efl claims that they have the best interests of Derby at heart, a complete lie.

I believe that Parliament found that there was more that the efl could have done to stop Bury fc going bankrupt, and made recommendations about chamges the efl should make, not sure any of those recommendations happened.

One recommendation was that owners shouldn't be able to take loans against large fixed assets like grounds, that appears not to have happened.

Now it looks like we are further weakening the club by selling Jason Knight, for less than he's worth but if we don't do that we are not going to meet efl demand that we show them them the money (7 million needed to pay wages etc, until the Seasons end).

Edited January 16, 2022 by Oldben
Added content

[Stive Pesley]

28 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Then the EFL have to decide if the claims have merit - and if they decide they do, they truly have opened pandora's box on themselves. I think that could be the death knell of the football league, as every team can make a claim that something cost them points, which cost them places, which cost them money and promotion.

I keep trying to look at this objectively (for the sake of my sanity) and all I can deduce is that the EFL are talking about seeing "proof of funds" - which therefore must include the ability to pay the Boro/Wycombe compensation if they win in court after the club leaves administration with a new owner

Effectively blowing a hole in all the bidders plans - as none of them really want to budget for an EXTRA £50m or whatever - in the remote possibility of Boro/Wycombe winning their claims

And from the EFL perspective they have a duty to ensure that the new owners have a sound financial plan to keep the club trading

Plus - the EFL probably WANT to see these claims go to court and be quashed - for the reasons that Gboro states above, because let's be honest - if they win and the new owners have to fork out, the EFL has bigger problems than just little old Derby County!

I hope when it's all done and dusted that an independent enquiry is set up to look into the whole sorry saga from the day we were cleared of all the FFP charges. The EFL have made a continuing series of bad decisions from that moment on

 

 

 

[Jimbo Ram]

42 minutes ago, Gritstone Ram said:

I think we all know where the blame lies but he’s living it up on the Sandbanks. He’s certainly not been seen in Derbyshire.

Not a big fan of ‘Arry but can’t blame him for this ?

[GboroRam]

15 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

He has indicated that the case can be held post-sale so if we take him at his word, it isn't holding up the sale.

Doesn't he say that the EFL aren't holding up a sale? I read that as "once you've gone through the mediation process, you're welcome to sell".

[Ghost of Clough]

35 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I also wonder how our wage bill is so high, when we've got such a small group of players with a lot of youth and academy stars in there. Surely they aren't a huge overhead on our wage bill?

The club's total wage bill was equivalent to £14m per season in the months of September through to November, and it's got to be at least £1.5m lower following the 4 departures. I wouldn't consider that as high.