The Administration Thread

[StaffsRam]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

I don't know, it just feels weird that Parry hasn't got better things to do and that it is really him. I expect to see a 'my account was hacked' comment very soon?! ?

Dunno. Reading many of these responses they have all the hallmarks of having been typed by someone just using their index fingers. Cast-iron proof for me.

[uttoxram75]

35 minutes ago, BriggRam said:

I firmly believe once we have been dealt with, no other club will go through what we have, the EFL will bend/change it's rules......Boro, Bristol, Stoke etc etc will not be punished to the extent we have

No other club will ever be scrutinised like we have been. This is all down to Gibsons personal vendetta against Morris. The EFL should be professional enough not to take sides but they are obviously terrified of Gibson. 

It took a year or so to find out we'd breached FFP, a forensic investigation by external parties to find summat wrong. In the mean time we had transfer embargo's, got the 21 point deduction and still they go after us.

The other clubs will be fine, they will never have the depth of investigation, the need to find some sort of wrongdoing that we have had to put up with.

duck Gibson and duck the EFL.

[BriggRam]

16 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

No other club will ever be scrutinised like we have been. This is all down to Gibsons personal vendetta against Morris. The EFL should be professional enough not to take sides but they are obviously terrified of Gibson. 

It took a year or so to find out we'd breached FFP, a forensic investigation by external parties to find summat wrong. In the mean time we had transfer embargo's, got the 21 point deduction and still they go after us.

The other clubs will be fine, they will never have the depth of investigation, the need to find some sort of wrongdoing that we have had to put up with.

duck Gibson and duck the EFL.

As I say mate, when other clubs are looked at rules will have changed/altered to a degree that they won't suffer the way we have

[rammieib]

3 hours ago, Rev said:

Just so I'm clear, this is how I understand the current situation, feel free to point out where I'm wrong.

 

The admins have a preferred buyer lined up and ready to proceed, as they'd communicated to Wayne last week.

 

That preferred buyer won't proceed with the purchase with the claims of Middlesbrough and Wycombe hanging over us, which can't be heard in the law courts, but only through the EFL dispute resolution process.

The EFL don't know what these claims entail, but are insistent that they may be valid and therefore must be heard through an in house process

If the claim was found correct against us, the compensation payable would become a football debt, therefore payable in full.

In turn, as the EFL has no statute of limitation, we could then take QPR to a similar panel for denying us a place in the PL, and have a much stronger case for compensation, as we were 1 game removed from promotion, rather than 3.

None of the above should have been a surprise to the administrators, so to claim the goalposts have been moved at the last minute is disingenuous at best, incompetent at worse.

Neither party seems to be acting in the best interests of DCFC, which while I understand isn't the admins role, would seem to be a failing of the EFL's part.

 

There is something in the above I just don’t think can be correct. If the Admins were ready to call the PB late last week they would have known they were doing it with the Boro/Wycombe claim still on the table. 

So Ashley (assuming he is the PB) must have said we could proceed with putting him in play. 
 

Now if the EFL have said, sort out the claim first (which we don’t even know how formal the claims are!) AND if the Parry emails are genuine, this has now changed to the claims can be sorted down the line after a PB is in place, something does not add up here.

Way too many cloak and daggers amongst all this and I hope the MP’s can force the EFL to be more transparent this week.

[jono]

9 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Actually you were spot on on the last bit. The EFL are Sh$t scared why else is Rick Parry emailing people from Derby all weekend. It's damage limitation for them.. but it's too late EFL has "lost the dressing room".

And as I say we are a member of EFL , a founding member so of course they have a duty to act in our best interests and the best interests of the fans. They are failing in that duty.. massively.  
 

Not quite. They have to act in the best interests of their competition and all members/teams equitably .. Which they are not. 

[CornwallRam]

6 hours ago, rammieib said:

There is something in the above I just don’t think can be correct. If the Admins were ready to call the PB late last week they would have known they were doing it with the Boro/Wycombe claim still on the table. 

So Ashley (assuming he is the PB) must have said we could proceed with putting him in play. 
 

Now if the EFL have said, sort out the claim first (which we don’t even know how formal the claims are!) AND if the Parry emails are genuine, this has now changed to the claims can be sorted down the line after a PB is in place, something does not add up here.

Way too many cloak and daggers amongst all this and I hope the MP’s can force the EFL to be more transparent this week.

My understanding is that the EFL have rejected the administrators' proposal to exit administration via a corporate restructuring plan. The idea of this is we go to court and say the debts are too high for a CVA and liquidation won't raise much for the creditors, but the business is viable without the debt so it's in everyone's interests for the club to carry on and the incoming owners to pay maybe 10% to the creditors, as opposed to 4% from liquidation - figures just for illustration. That would also effectively end the Boro and Wycombe cases. OK, we'd get a 15 point penalty for next season, but the club would emerge debt free.

I've read bits saying that Appleby had offered £30m, which never enough for a CVA, but might have been enough for a restructure. To stay in the league, we'd still have to pay 100% to football creditors, but I think that MSD could be negotiated with or we could leave Pride Park and HMRC paid the same as the other creditors. 

For a CVA, I reckon it would need between £48m to £65m, depending on HMRC. That assumes Mel Morris writes off his soft loans and doesn't necessarily include the stadium - Mel would own it enencumbered so could gift it back, sell it for a reduced price or lease it back to the club. 

The advantage of the CVA is that there's no points deduction, but will anyone stump up that amount? Personally, I think it all depends on Mel throwing in the ground. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PistoldPete]

25 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

My understanding is that the EFL have rejected the administrators' proposal to exit administration via a corporate restructuring plan. The idea of this is we go to court and say the debts are too high for a CVA and liquidation won't raise much for the creditors, but the business is viable without the debt so it's in everyone's interests for the club to carry on and the incoming owners to pay maybe 10% to the creditors, as opposed to 4% from liquidation - figures just for illustration. That would also effectively end the Boro and Wycombe cases. OK, we'd get a 15 point penalty for next season, but the club would emerge debt free.

I've read bits saying that Appleby had offered £30m, which never enough for a CVA, but might have been enough for a restructure. To stay in the league, we'd still have to pay 100% to football creditors, but I think that MSD could be negotiated with or we could leave Pride Park and HMRC paid the same as the other creditors. 

For a CVA, I reckon it would need between £48m to £65m, depending on HMRC. That assumes Mel Morris writes off his soft loans and doesn't necessarily include the stadium - Mel would own it enencumbered so could gift it back, sell it for a reduced price or lease it back to the club. 

The advantage of the CVA is that there's no points deduction, but will anyone stump up that amount? Personally, I think it all depends on Mel throwing in the ground. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Kirchner's claim that he had committed to pay £60 million over two years (and yet still been outbid by more than one bid, maybe several), must be complete poo?

The admin team has said their preferred and expected route is via CVA, and there has been no further update from them on that. The only update we have had is that the bids from potential buyers have been getting better. 

So the only bad news we have had is the Boro and Wycombe claims. It seems shocking and disgusting that these dodgy claims can be pushing us so close to the edge.      

[CornwallRam]

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

So Kirchner's claim that he had committed to pay £60 million over two years (and yet still been outbid by more than one bid, maybe several), must be complete poo?

The admin team has said their preferred and expected route is via CVA, and there has been no further update from them on that. The only update we have had is that the bids from potential buyers have been getting better. 

So the only bad news we have had is the Boro and Wycombe claims. It seems shocking and disgusting that these dodgy claims can be pushing us so close to the edge.      

I think Kirchner's claim included ongoing funding for two seasons. 

[PistoldPete]

7 hours ago, rammieib said:

There is something in the above I just don’t think can be correct. If the Admins were ready to call the PB late last week they would have known they were doing it with the Boro/Wycombe claim still on the table. 

So Ashley (assuming he is the PB) must have said we could proceed with putting him in play. 
 

Now if the EFL have said, sort out the claim first (which we don’t even know how formal the claims are!) AND if the Parry emails are genuine, this has now changed to the claims can be sorted down the line after a PB is in place, something does not add up here.

Way too many cloak and daggers amongst all this and I hope the MP’s can force the EFL to be more transparent this week.

I think you are right, both Parry and the admin team has said that PB can pick up the tab (if there is any) for Boro and Wycombe.

The difference, as outlined in the admin team statement, is they want to "compromise" them first via the CVA or whatever process there is for emerging from admin. EFL has contested that bit I  think... they don't like the idea of us paying 25% or whatever of the Boro and Wycombe sums that might eventually fall due., as EFL would regard them as "football creditors". But why should  these dodgy claims get 100% whilst others including HMRC get less, maybe only 25%? Admin team's duty is to all creditors , and they are quite right to resist doing it the way EFL want.      

The whole thing is ridiculous anyway. 25% of nothing or 100% of nothing is still nothing, and nothing is what the Boro and Wycombe claims are worth. 
 

 

[PistoldPete]

8 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I think Kirchner's claim included ongoing funding for two seasons. 

But I thought we were meant to be sustainable, so what funding would we need? Except to pay off existing debts under a payment plan? 

[CornwallRam]

3 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

But I thought we were meant to be sustainable, so what funding would we need? Except to pay off existing debts under a payment plan? 

I'm not sure that any Championship club can run without external funding and our infrastructure is too big for League 1. We'd need either quick promotion or ongoing funding. 

[GenBr]

Not read the last few pages so forgive me if already explained, but does anyone know what the cameras are for at the main entrance to moor farm? Are we expecting an announcement?

[Jimbo Ram]

7 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Not read the last few pages so forgive me if already explained, but does anyone know what the cameras are for at the main entrance to moor farm? Are we expecting an announcement?

Someone said Central News were doing a feature….

[i-Ram]

53 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I think Kirchner's claim included ongoing funding for two seasons. 

According to him (reporting) the £60m would have also included a £20m payment to a certain Mel Morris outside of any CVA/restructuring arrangement, to have unencumbered ownership of our stadium.

[GenBr]

10 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Someone said Central News were doing a feature….

Thanks mate, Well thats something at least.

Silly me for thinking progress was being made ?

Edited January 17, 2022 by GenBr

[Tombo]

Have I missed something with these Parry emails? Has he been in touch with some of you?

[i-Ram]

14 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Not read the last few pages so forgive me if already explained, but does anyone know what the cameras are for at the main entrance to moor farm? Are we expecting an announcement?

3000 female teenagers have chained themselves to the outside perimeter fence.

[ThePrisoner]

2 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Thanks mat, Well thats something at least.

Silly me for thinking progress was being made ?

Probably Sky Sports News leading with the Everton managerial position story 

[ThePrisoner]

2 minutes ago, Tombo said:

Have I missed something with these Parry emails? Has he been in touch with some of you?

Has been replying to most people all weekend.

[i-Ram]

1 minute ago, Tombo said:

Have I missed something with these Parry emails? Has he been in touch with some of you?