Jump to content

The Administration Thread

Boycie

By Boycie
in Derby County Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 49.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Most active in this topic

  • PistoldPete

    1853

  • RoyMac5

    1695

  • Ram-Alf

    1252

  • Curtains

    1191

Popular Days

Most active in this topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

maxjam
maxjam

So... I went to the shop shortly after the announcement to grab some 'celebration juice' for tonight and met a guy in a Derby shirt holding a 4 pack of Bud and asked him if he was celebrating as

Cam the Ram
Cam the Ram
angieram
angieram

I haven't got time to mop up sexist comments,  I am too busy making cups of tea for the other mods! 

Posted Images

Indy

Indy

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, sage said:

seen it now

What is the explanation/reason?

Does anyone have a list of our appearances this season and an estimate of how much of our money is sat in EFL’s bank account for home games, away games, red button etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rev

Rev

Posted
Posted

Why has the buyer got to buy the stadium?

Rent is set at £1.1m per year, why bother paying £20m upfront for it when the guarantee on the loan is on Mel?

Surely upon new owners, Mel could convert the rent payments into a 20 yr mortgage, and bank himself a 10% ROI to boot?

Alternatively, the new owners could agree the rent, and then not pay it. Could you see Mel taking Derby County to court for none payment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Animal is a Ram

Animal is a Ram

Posted
Posted

Long post alert - TLDR: taking apart the statements, apologies if it has already been covered, but it's therapeutic. Feel free to correct stuff.

but feel like breaking down the events of Statement Thursday - starting with this:

Quote

https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/an-open-letter-from-steve-gibson-to-the-joint-administrators-of-Derby-county-fc

  1. MSD/Mel/Stadium - I think Derby fans have a contention with this, let alone you, Stephen. Also, surely commercially sensitive? I realise that the charges are in with the appropriate plaves for anyone to see, but I can't imagine that a preferred bidder will be wanting the rest of the information out there. That said, admin statements seem to indicate that the two/three interested parties are happy to be taking on the stadium at the cost of £20m - which, as far as I understand would essentially wipe the charge and Mel would make nothing? Plus: 
  2. Being left out in discussions - You aren't *actually* a creditor yet, so why should you be included in discussions?
  3. HMRC - again, surely this is commercially sensitive. Again, going by admin statements, being so close to naming a preferred bidder would indicate to me that there is an agreement in place.
  4. Big claim to say the admins are leaking to the media. Doesn't sit right with me, and I doubt, given what has been out there in the media is from the admins side.
  5. I'd also love to know how much the admins are costing the club, but its irrelevant. There'd only be another administrator to pay through the nose for. I can't imagine any of them are cheap. I notice this from BAWT: 

In the interest of balance - perhaps I'm being a little naive, or too trusting of the admins, or suffering from Ram-tinted reading glasses. That said, the whole letter just feels like an exercise in "oh look, I'm not the bad guy, Mel and the admins are the bad guy!" and just comes across as a vendetta against Mel.

Next up, the EFL:

Quote

https://www.efl.com/news/2022/january/Derby-county-update/

 

Quote

One such claim made in the past 24 hours is that the EFL has questions to answer regarding a supposed deal reached with Middlesbrough FC linked to Disciplinary action being taken against Derby County for alleged Profitability and Sustainability breaches.

Rick Parry seems to have intimated the opposite? There wasn't 'a deal' per se, but a potential claim from MFC against the EFL was the motivation for moving more quickly against DCFC, no?

Quote

At present, the EFL is not in a position to make a determination as to the status of compensation claims by Middlesbrough and Wycombe under the terms of the EFL’s Articles of Association and/or Insolvency policy, as it could lead to additional action from those already interested parties and the wider membership of Clubs. The role of the EFL is to balance the interests of all 72 EFL Clubs and to make a unilateral decision either way could de-stabilise the competition and be viewed as reckless and unfair to all parties.

This screams fear. I can only read this to mean that if the EFL rules 'in favour' of DCFC (i.e. they are not football creditors), then they are scared that MFC/WWFC/others will then go after the EFL, as they don't want to be seen to be favouring DCFC. BUT, they won't rule 'against' DCFC, as that will then squarely put a large part of the blame on their hands, should the worst happen. How can this be fair? How can this be interpreted any other way than this inaction is blocking a takeover?

Quote

In an attempt to move this particular matter forward swiftly, the EFL has written to all parties with a proposed solution to negotiate a deal via independent legal mediation

About the only sensible thing, and commendable. Why it has taken this long is frightening, I can only imagine this is only because significant pressure has been applied by getting MPs involved.

Quote

Whilst clarity is also required as to the status of the claims from both Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers, it is also critical that progress on two fronts urgently be made:

  1. Fair enough. I don't have a problem with ensuring the club can see out the season.
  2. However, I have a problem here. How can the admins possibly move forward with a preferred bidder when the claims are in the state they are in? No sensible person would take the risk, especially when, as reported elsewhere, the combination of the claims are worth as much as the club itself! I guess you could argue no sensible person would own a football club, but here we are... The assertion that not having a PB is holding up the sale, when the above issue is holding up naming a preferred bidder is nonsensical. It's a circular argument.
Quote

However, any resolution achieved cannot ignore or sidestep EFL Regulations or UK law and any solution needs to be found that satisfies the competition regulations and the terms of the EFL’s Insolvency Policy that was set and agreed by all 72 members, including Derby County.

This must contradict itself - IIRC the Insolvency Policy is now out of date(?), so we either comply with UK law or the EFL policy, and while I'm no lawyer or accountant, I'd say with some confidence UK law supercedes the EFLs rules...

Phew. Now for Quantuma:

Quote

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2022/01/an-update-from-the-joint-administrators-of-Derby-county-football-club

Quote

Our perceived lack of recent communication has therefore been both tactical and deliberate.

I enjoyed this line. Might start using this in my work emails... ?

The rest doesn't really tell us that much new information, but can pretty much be summed up as:

  • Preferred bidder is still very close
  • Admins are insistent that the two stumbling blocks are the uncertainty around the claims, and what effect that would have on next season with regards to sanctions - i.e. the -15 if the club does not exit admin 'properly'. [I fail to see how we can exit admin properly if the admins don't know if the potential claims are football creditors or not?]
  • Carefully worded about the claims, they didn't comment on how valid they thought they were, but that they'd consulted lawyer-types as to their credibility and the credibility of the EFLs position - [the latter got my attention...]
  • Putting forward one of three funding plans for the rest of the season. 

I haven't been as critical of the admins post, but I feel there isn't much to be critical about - it's not quite as aggressive in tone (in my head, anyway) as the other two, it doesn't feel as if it's pointedly blaming the EFL, just further doubling down on its position that the uncertainty around the status of the two claims is what is blocking the naming of the preferred bidder. Neither does it look to blame those clubs for claiming the compensation - hell, it doesn't even mention the two clubs by name.

I'm not happy with the admins - I'm not happy with anyone in this wee-poor affair. 

Then, while I was making this mammoth post, there came the stuff from BAWT. I'm going to assume in the time between me starting this post, and finishing it, someone has already linked it and it has been thoroughly discussed... but for the sake of completeness, it can be found here: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BramcoteRam84

BramcoteRam84

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

Btw am I the only one confused why the administrators have presented funding scenarios to the efl rather than simply getting the funding scenario that is most pleasing for the preferred bidder and best for the club? 

They tried that last week and it was rejected because it didn’t deal with the Boro and Wycombe claims 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RadioactiveWaste

RadioactiveWaste

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Rev said:

Why has the buyer got to buy the stadium?

Rent is set at £1.1m per year, why bother paying £20m upfront for it when the guarantee on the loan is on Mel?

Surely upon new owners, Mel could convert the rent payments into a 20 yr mortgage, and bank himself a 10% ROI to boot?

Alternatively, the new owners could agree the rent, and then not pay it. Could you see Mel taking Derby County to court for none payment!

The bidders i believe have all said they'd only want to buy the club if they buy the stadium at the same time.

In theory the deals are separate and in theory a new owner could just pay mel the rent for the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...