kevinhectoring Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 15 minutes ago, StaffsRam said: As I said earlier, the only potential issue with the Binnie bid is if MSD aren’t game for it. Q will have told bidders on what basis they should bid and it would be odd if the Binnies had at this stage put in a non compliant bid. MSD would obviously have signed off on the bid requirements. I’d thought the Binnie bid might involve £28 m for the shares in the club, academy etc £[5m] non refundable cash deposit for ongoing working capital £20 m (to be paid to Gellaw 202 for the stadium). OR £20m to be paid to MM (for the shares in 202) I’d think the £20m would then go to pay down MSD. I’d expect q will now be soliciting binding final offers from the other bidders before proceeding with the Binnies RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 7 minutes ago, StaffsRam said: At which point we refer them to the EFL’s rules. They’re the ones who say all football creditors have to be repaid 100%. Aha ! The Courts are concerned with insolvency law not the EFl rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsRam Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 7 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Aha ! The Courts are concerned with insolvency law not the EFl rules Haha of course. In reality I doubt that would be an issue, it won’t be what they’re being asked to rule on. Is there any validity to the claims? Are the damages sought fair? Thus far the Binnies haven’t agreed to any amounts, just an acceptance of the potential unknown future liabilities. RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsRam Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 (edited) 23 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Q will have told bidders on what basis they should bid and it would be odd if the Binnies had at this stage put in a non compliant bid. MSD would obviously have signed off on the bid requirements. I’d thought the Binnie bid might involve £28 m for the shares in the club, academy etc £[5m] non refundable cash deposit for ongoing working capital £20 m (to be paid to Gellaw 202 for the stadium). OR £20m to be paid to MM (for the shares in 202) I’d think the £20m would then go to pay down MSD. I’d expect q will now be soliciting binding final offers from the other bidders before proceeding with the Binnies I don’t think the £28m has anything to do with the stadium at all. I think the intent will be to let the MSD loans run, and I suspect MSD will be fine with that as they’re on a good rate of interest with guaranteed collateral. No idea if the £28m covers any monies for operating costs or if that’s a separate amount. Will be nice to get a breakdown of the bid early next week so that we can know for sure. The ball is absolutely in Appleby/Ashley’s court now, I can’t see Q letting it drag on too far into the week before having to nominate a PB. Edited January 22, 2022 by StaffsRam rammieib 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 2 minutes ago, StaffsRam said: I don’t think the £28m has anything to do with the stadium at all. I think the intent will be to let the MSD loans run, and I suspect MSD will be fine with that as they’re on a good rate of interest with guaranteed collateral. No idea if the £28m covers any monies for operating costs if that’s a separate amount. Will be nice to get a breakdown of the bid early next week so that we can know for sure. The ball is absolutely in Appleby/Ashley’s court now, I can’t see Q letting it drag on too far into the week before having to nominate a PB. I don’t think the Binnies will pay Dell’s interest rates but who knows. Perhaps Carlisle Capital will refinance the MSD loans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsRam Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Just now, kevinhectoring said: I don’t think the Binnies will pay Dell’s interest rates but who knows. Perhaps Carlisle Capital will refinance the MSD loans. Definitely one possibility. Or, they’ll look to pay it off once the parasite claims have been binned off without us having to pay a dime. kevinhectoring 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 48 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Seems there must be a danger that a court would ask: you are planning to pay the WM claims in full (even though you don’t think you’ll lose). But you are planning to pay existing unsecureds just 25p in the pound? How is that fair as between the classes ? As the claims are just that claims with no value they can’t be counted in the process. the football league stave is that they cannot be ignored - the new bidders have said they will accept they are there and deal with them after leaving admin, meaning we will have funds to pay what we need to pay once decided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, davenportram said: As the claims are just that claims with no value they can’t be counted in the process. the football league stave is that they cannot be ignored - the new bidders have said they will accept they are there and deal with them after leaving admin, meaning we will have funds to pay what we need to pay once decided. Contingent claims can’t be ignored in a restructuring I’m just wondering whether unsecured creditors might say - it’s unfair, if you give the contingent claimants a better deal than us. HMRC for example could say that. I think this is what @PistoldPeteis suggesting? Edited January 22, 2022 by kevinhectoring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 (edited) 40 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Contingent claims can’t be ignored in a restructuring I’m just wondering whether unsecured creditors might say - it’s unfair, if you give the contingent claimants a better deal than us. HMRC for example could say that. I think this is what @PistoldPeteis suggesting? At the minute thiught there is no value to it as the arbitration process hasn’t started so the creditors get more if we ignore them for coming out of administration and deal with them after coming out of administration Edited January 23, 2022 by davenportram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtoileSportiveDeDerby Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 (edited) Big week this week, really hope it gets sorted out. With all the shizzle off the field to sort out at the moment it is more Derby Accounting FC than Derby County FC Edited January 23, 2022 by EtoileSportiveDeDerby Van der MoodHoover, Ewe Ram and Ewetube 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucker1884 Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 16 hours ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said: I hope Parry stands on a plug, pin side up, when he next gets out of bed. Not much chance of that. I hear The Parry's are minted, and Mrs P's "bedroom gadgets" are all USB chargeable nowadays! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucker1884 Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 Following my immensely unsuccessful attempts a few months back, to get the word "Shrambles" introduced to the dcfcfans dictionary, may I at least make one further attempt, before accepting my efforts to be utterly unworthy for consideration? May I offer the term "Parrysites"! ? uttoxram75, i-Ram, Gaspode and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 11 hours ago, PistoldPete said: The Percy article seems to confirm my fears that the Binnie bid is not as good as the other bids. They can't come in and deduct monies from an acceptable purchase price, just because they are offering to cover Boro and Wycombe claims. So effectively the other genuine creditors would lose out because of the Boro and Wycombe claims. That can't happen. But it is the best bid if they are prepared to take on Boro and WW. If the takeover cannot proceed without these being addressed then any other bids are not worth the paper they are written on. davenportram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 8 hours ago, davenportram said: At the minute thiught there is no value to it as the arbitration process hasn’t started so the creditors get more if we ignore them for coming out of administration and deal with them after coming out of administration Yes. So if the Binnies accept the risk on the two claims, and if bizarrely Gibbo gets awarded some damages the effect is: - unsecureds take a haircut - Gibbo gets 100 p in the pound That satisfies the EFL rules but seems unfair on the unsecureds. It’s what happened in the Wolves case and there may be a way of structuring the payment to Gibbo to avoid the problem. But I hope Q have thought it through Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 9 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Yes. So if the Binnies accept the risk on the two claims, and if bizarrely Gibbo gets awarded some damages the effect is: - unsecureds take a haircut - Gibbo gets 100 p in the pound That satisfies the EFL rules but seems unfair on the unsecureds. It’s what happened in the Wolves case and there may be a way of structuring the payment to Gibbo to avoid the problem. But I hope Q have thought it through None of that is right though - if I was one of the creditors I would consider legal action on agreeing to pay someone who doesn’t have an exact fixed charge against the club Crewton 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambalin Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 IslandExile 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 This is obviously a big week for the football club and I hope it can bring absolute clarity and real progress. Crewton 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Ram Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 4 minutes ago, Sparkle said: None of that is right though - if I was one of the creditors I would consider legal action on agreeing to pay someone who doesn’t have an exact fixed charge against the club None of it’s right but we have to find some kind of solution don’t we ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 5 minutes ago, Sparkle said: None of that is right though - if I was one of the creditors I would consider legal action on agreeing to pay someone who doesn’t have an exact fixed charge against the club Sue the EFL they made us do it!? PistoldPete 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Ram Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 4 minutes ago, Rambalin said: Let’s hope Ashley’s interest grows quickly…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now