The Administration Thread

[atherstoneram]

3 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I think the key one is that even under the embargo restrictions there was provision for *some* movement - the stance in January was an absolute "you're insolvent, we've got to see the money before you can sign any sort of contracts" which was frustrating, but, insolvent businesses generally get an awful lot of that.

With demonstrable funds for short term free agent contracts we should be able to bring in free agents on minimal wages. Obviously, at the EFL's discretion.

They may not allow us to increase the wage bill.

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

It has everything to do with Gibson. He wants to screw Mel as much as he can. The first point in his open letter was have the administrators settled with Mel. It’s a personal battle of egos. I agree he should keep his nose out and he should drop his claim but he isn’t going to.

The buyers need to stop playing games? They will only buy for the right price, the easiest way to sort it out would be to pay over the odds. They are not going to.

You therefore have the negotiation game and brinkmanship going on and this will continue possibly until we reach another cliff edge. It will be horrendous for us as fans who are powerless and can do nothing apart from keep pressure on the various groups MPs, social media etc. 
 

While the administrators are copping flak now and I completely understand why, we need to remember what a complex and horrific mess Mel has left, ridiculous debts way more than the club is worth, the stadium situation and a Middlesbrough claim that while it’s a nonsense has been on the table for over a year and Mel simply has not engaged and left the problem. These administrators were appointed by MSD as well as Mel, possibly they were the only ones willing to take it on? 
 

It’s not been sorted yet because it’s a bloody mess and extremely difficult to 

Isn’t Mel in California.

He has gone and people need to realise it .

The ground is the big issue regarding Mel .

Steve Gibson has to be neutralized in the courts 

 

[BramcoteRam84]

4 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Isn’t Mel in California.

He has gone and people need to realise it .

The ground is the big issue regarding Mel .

Steve Gibson has to be neutralized in the courts 

 

That is the pragmatic solution that no one right now is prepared to agree to. Mel may be gone and he may be saying ground is no issue - MSD need paying for the ground and with the debts so high some buyers (Ashley) don’t want to pay £20m - but he has left behind complete and utter carnage and then you have egos like Gibson trying to force him back to the table.

Mel might have left a situation that cannot be resolved. Let’s hope that isn’t the case. 

[RoyMac5]

13 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

But Reading aren't in administration and their owners don't seem to have a problem paying the bills or been asked for proof of funding to get through the season.

 

The point was that the EFL apply the rules as they see fit, one interpretation does not fit all.

Edited February 3, 2022 by RoyMac5

[RoyMac5]

9 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Isn’t Mel in California.

He has gone and people need to realise it .

The ground is the big issue regarding Mel .

Steve Gibson has to be neutralized in the courts 

 

Didn't he go to a meeting with DCC people and others last week.

The ground isn't the issue. Gibson & Wycombe plus the EFL are. With Quantuma looking a bit uncertain as to what they'll do.

[Ghost of Clough]

21 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

If we've only got enough cash to see us through to the end of the season, we're not going to be allowed to bring anyone in. Otherwise their wages are going to tip us back under that threshold.  We needed a surplus of cash to be allowed to spend some.  A preferred bidder putting £5m in would have done that. Going by @Ghost of Clough's figures, there's only been ~£2.4m of cash coming in + savings.

It depends how ST and match day income comes into it. Obviously ST money is already in the bank and can count towards the total (about £2.8m for the remaining 9 games), but can match-by-match tickets be included? Probably not, but estimating 20k turn up for each game is a fair worst case scenario, so I personally believe that income should be in the proof of funding calculation.

 

21 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

EFL tracker at present

Derby County

Regulation 16.2 - Failure to provide audited annual accounts

Regulation 16.3 - Annual Accounts not filed with Companies House

Regulation 17 - Default in payments to HMRC

Profit and Sustainability Rules - non-submission of audited accounts

Club in administration.

With the above i doubt the embargo can be lifted

There are different levels of embargo. It's reasonable to assume if *some* requirements are met, then we'll be allowed to sign some free agents.

[Kingpin]

16 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

this will continue possibly until we reach another cliff edge

This is the point. Buyers don’t care too much other than the right price. Neither do admin other than getting the maximum income. As long as deadlines and dates continue to be pushed there seems an even greater risk of an axe falling on the DCFC neck. 

Edited February 3, 2022 by Kingpin

[atherstoneram]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It depends how ST and match day income comes into it. Obviously ST money is already in the bank and can count towards the total (about £2.8m for the remaining 9 games), but can match-by-match tickets be included? Probably not, but estimating 20k turn up for each game is a fair worst case scenario, so I personally believe that income should be in the proof of funding calculation.

 

There are different levels of embargo. It's reasonable to assume if *some* requirements are met, then we'll be allowed to sign some free agents.

Maybe the administrators have illustrated on a month by month basis that we will have funds to complete the season?

[atherstoneram]

6 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Really? To make it obvious for you.

The point was that the EFL apply the rules as they see fit, one interpretation does not fit all.

Reading are nowhere near the situation we are in.

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It depends how ST and match day income comes into it. Obviously ST money is already in the bank and can count towards the total (about £2.8m for the remaining 9 games), but can match-by-match tickets be included? Probably not, but estimating 20k turn up for each game is a fair worst case scenario, so I personally believe that income should be in the proof of funding calculation.

The point was, the ticket money was factored in anyway, whether we got additional money from a preferred bidder or from sales/savings.  If we've just hit the "funded to the end of the season" with the extra £2.4m from sales/savings, then there's no extra room for additional signings without dropping back below that limit.  A preferred bidder putting in £5m would have given us an extra £2.6m headroom compared to where we are now.

[Crewton]

2 hours ago, atherstoneram said:

The creditors have probably already written the losses off so they could say pay us what we are owed or go away.

Who's going to turn down something in favour of nothing though, when it comes to a straight vote of creditors? 

I acceot that it's a possibility but, if it does happen like that, and it's driven by the major creditors, I hope they take a moral lead and compensate unsecured creditors for the decision that they've taken, because some businesses will not have the financial strength to simply write-off the losses. It's not just their interest, or their desire to punish DCFC, that's at stake

 

[Curtains]

2 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

That is the pragmatic solution that no one right now is prepared to agree to. Mel may be gone and he may be saying ground is no issue - MSD need paying for the ground and with the debts so high some buyers (Ashley) don’t want to pay £20m - but he has left behind complete and utter carnage and then you have egos like Gibson trying to force him back to the table.

Mel might have left a situation that cannot be resolved. Let’s hope that isn’t the case. 

I don’t think much has changed really in the last week other than losing some very good young players which is very disappointing.

Its very difficult for Wayne and I hope he can bring some out of contract players in EFL permitting.

The situation is still all about the takeover being done and that only happens at the moment after arbitration/ Civil courts .

I have said all along the EFL are as much a problem to the administrators as they were to MM and are now to Wayne Rooney and the Club  

Mel made mistakes and that was compounded by Covid 19 and failed attempts to go for the Premiership.

He should do the right thing but we can only hope on that as we don’t know his situation or thoughts regarding this  

 

[atherstoneram]

1 minute ago, Crewton said:

Who's going to turn down something in favour of nothing though, when it comes to a straight vote of creditors? 

I acceot that it's a possibility but, if it does happen like that, and it's driven by the major creditors, I hope they take a moral lead and compensate unsecured creditors for the decision that they've taken, because some businesses will not have the financial strength to simply write-off the losses. It's not just their interest, or their desire to punish DCFC, that's at stake

 

The businesses that can't afford to write off the debt may have already ceased trading, not picking an argument but if the money wasn't there when it was due and possibly needed why would they worry about the club now.

[Ghost of Clough]

Just now, duncanjwitham said:

The point was, the ticket money was factored in anyway, whether we got additional money from a preferred bidder or from sales/savings.  If we've just hit the "funded to the end of the season" with the extra £2.4m from sales/savings, then there's no extra room for additional signings without dropping back below that limit.  A preferred bidder putting in £5m would have given us an extra £2.6m headroom compared to where we are now.

Ticket money can only be accounted for on a match by match basis. Without the player sales we couldn't get past a certain date to release the fund from another match.

Preferred bidder won't be announced until the parasite claims are resolved, so no deposit off them until then. We didn't have enough time to wait for that to happen.

In my estimate, I stated £400k per home match. That is the equivalent to 20k fans in the group.
We can only offer out £4.5k pw wages, which is about £70k to the end of the season.
An extra 4k bums on seats for a single game (24k attendance) should mean we're able to get another player in.

[Curtains]

9 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Didn't he go to a meeting with DCC people and others last week.

The ground isn't the issue. Gibson & Wycombe plus the EFL are. With Quantuma looking a bit uncertain as to what they'll do.

Did he or was it a Zoom call .

Mate I’m with you regarding saving Derby County  

I am in turmoil over the club and I’m just hoping as all Derby Fans are that it gets sorted.

The Club  survival as a going concern  is paramount In whatever league

 

It worries me to the extent that it’s on my mind all the time  

 

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

18 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

Reading are nowhere near the situation we are in.

Agreed, that’s because their chairman/owner/financier hasn’t chucked their toys out and left Reading FC in a steaming pile like MM has with us.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Ted McMinn Football Genius

[Curtains]

13 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Ticket money can only be accounted for on a match by match basis. Without the player sales we couldn't get past a certain date to release the fund from another match.

Preferred bidder won't be announced until the parasite claims are resolved, so no deposit off them until then. We didn't have enough time to wait for that to happen.

In my estimate, I stated £400k per home match. That is the equivalent to 20k fans in the group.
We can only offer out £4.5k pw wages, which is about £70k to the end of the season.
An extra 4k bums on seats for a single game (24k attendance) should mean we're able to get another player in.

Mate thanks.   Very informative 

[PistoldPete]

59 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

? More important really.

Agreed.

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I think to an extent Mel Morris is still interested in protecting his position/wealth from further losses relating to DCFC but I don't think he's actively trying to influence the administration process beyond that.

It's more the creation of all our problems then getting board of losing his fortune and running away aspects that are my beef with Mr Morris.

 

If I were MM’s personal security adviser I’d tell him not to set foot in the East Midlands until the good ship DCFC is in calm waters 

[PistoldPete]

39 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It depends how ST and match day income comes into it. Obviously ST money is already in the bank and can count towards the total (about £2.8m for the remaining 9 games), but can match-by-match tickets be included? Probably not, but estimating 20k turn up for each game is a fair worst case scenario, so I personally believe that income should be in the proof of funding calculation.

 

There are different levels of embargo. It's reasonable to assume if *some* requirements are met, then we'll be allowed to sign some free agents.

But how do we know what the attendance will be ? It won’t be 32k every home game , but probably a lot more than 20k from now on.