Is Mel still 'pulling the strings'?

[PistoldPete]

9 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

sanctimonious specious crowd-pleasing piffle   

the pertinent question is this: is MM obliged to continue to fund losses ad infinitum? Is he for example obliged to continue to fund losses when Gibson has his balls in a mangle and can stop him selling the club? Because that's the situation Morris was in and that's the situation Quantuma advised MSD on, when the last seller withdrew and when MM said: I'm not funding another cent.

And I reckon what they advised was:  the only way you get a deal with the EFL is if it is negotiated by administrators. Then the club can be sold and can remain a going concern

so @PistoldPete is in a way correct. Morris pulled the funding. Any suggestion he is not ultimately entitled to do this is facile. This left just two options, administration or liquidation. He opted for the former, for obvious reasons, and he agreed to assist the administrators in their quest to sell the club. Of course the choice of admin was not primarily driven by creditors' interests - it was driven by a determination the club should continue. But that choice puts the creditors in a much better position than if there had been a liquidation

 

 

 

Thanks for the eloquent explanation. I agree with all of it, although wouldn't use words like sanctimonious piffle.

But I agree its pointless going on and on about how Morris should have carried on subsidising us. There was no legal obligation for him to do that  and we don't even know whether he could afford to. Fine we all agree he shouldn't have got us into this mess , but we are where we are and  frankly the real enemies are Gibson and co and they are the present danger to all Rams fans.  

[Red Ram]

17 hours ago, i-Ram said:

Morris delayed put us into Admin. He was trying to get as much money back as poss. By the time he finally went down the admin route we were a financial basket case. 

And a League One club in waiting so much further away from the premier league and with a significantly reduced income stream

[Red Ram]

10 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

And I reckon what they advised was:  the only way you get a deal with the EFL is if it is negotiated by administrators. Then the club can be sold and can remain a going concern

The EFL were trying to bring the points deduction sanctions to an agreed conclusion with Morris long before we went into administration. A 9 to 12 point deduction was always the ballpark sanction being mooted for the P&S violations. It's based on being in breach in 3 of the 4 rolling three year windows in the period in question.

Going into administration achieved nothing other than to get us an additional automatic 12 point deduction, followed by the 9+3 suspended points deduction we were always going to get.

If did absolutely nothing to improve the club's  negotiating position with the EFL. This claim is just a restatement of Mel Morris's propaganda to justify putting us into Administration. There's no evidence for it whatsoever.

 

[kevinhectoring]

18 minutes ago, Red Ram said:

The EFL were trying to bring the points deduction sanctions to an agreed conclusion with Morris long before we went into administration. A 9 to 12 point deduction was always the ballpark sanction being mooted for the P&S violations. It's based on being in breach in 3 of the 4 rolling three year windows in the period in question.

What MM said in his farewell interview was he'd concluded that the only way the EFL issues would be resolved was if he was no longer holding the reins. Quantuma's initial RD interview supported this version - it had been their advice that administration was the only way to secure a sale, because of the ongoing EFL issues. Q didn't refer to the enmity between MM and factions at the EFL but it's hard to think of another reason. If you need evidence to corroborate this version, Gibson's current antics surely fit the bill 

Edited January 6, 2022 by kevinhectoring

[i-Ram]

5 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

What MM said in his farewell interview was he'd concluded that the only way the EFL issues would be resolved was if he was no longer holding the reins. Quantuma's initial RD interview supported this version - it had been their advice that administration was the only way to secure a sale, because of the ongoing EFL issues. Q didn't refer to the enmity between MM and factions at the EFL but it's hard to think of another reason. If you need evidence to corroborate this version, Gibson's current antics surely fit the bill 

Morris and Pearce probably needed Quantuma to come in to show them how to prepare a proper set of Accounts.

[observer]

18 hours ago, super58 said:

Trouble is who pays for the upkeep of the stadium/H&S legislation etc etc I doubt it’s as simple as let’s buy it then let Derby use it for free

of course it is they are responsible for full costs, (same would be if they owned it)

 

People forget contracts can state absolutely anything but the about would just me a normally sole commercial lease

 

 

[observer]

Just now, observer said:

of course it is they are responsible for full costs, (same would be if they owned it)

 

People forget contracts can state absolutely anything but the about would just me a normally sole commercial lease

 

 

also that said Im pretty sure

one of the local accountants and solicitors would do the fan function responsibilities for free,

 

[kevinhectoring]

11 hours ago, Ram1988 said:

HMRC should make Mel personally liable for the debt he has wracked up.

on the HMRC debt, I did wonder whether much of it was accrued at a time when MM thought BZI was about to purchase. And whether his plan - even when that deal fizzled out - was that the long-awaited purchaser would pick it up. Then when the last purchaser fell away, the club was facing such a large liability ...    

 

[PistoldPete]

22 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

on the HMRC debt, I did wonder whether much of it was accrued at a time when MM thought BZI was about to purchase. And whether his plan - even when that deal fizzled out - was that the long-awaited purchaser would pick it up. Then when the last purchaser fell away, the club was facing such a large liability ...    

 

No that’s not true because no way Hmrc would have let the debt build up. They only allowed that to happen during the COVID pandemic. Quite how they then expect you to pay it back when you had no income for 18 months I don’t know.

[Red Ram]

2 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

What MM said in his farewell interview was he'd concluded that the only way the EFL issues would be resolved was if he was no longer holding the reins. Quantuma's initial RD interview supported this version - it had been their advice that administration was the only way to secure a sale, because of the ongoing EFL issues. Q didn't refer to the enmity between MM and factions at the EFL but it's hard to think of another reason. If you need evidence to corroborate this version, Gibson's current antics surely fit the bill 

Again it seems far more likely that the opposite is the case. Whatever the basis for Gibson's grievance, on the face of it the case looks pretty groundless. if the club wasn't in administration it's almost certain that whoever the owner of Derby was would simply call Gibson's bluff and say see you in court. It's unlikely that Gibson would then pursue because he would be advised by his lawyers that the case would almost certainly be laughed out of court. It's only the fact that Mel Morris put us into administration that has given Gibson any leverage whatsover, because however unlikely it is that Gibson could win the case, the possibility that he might represents an unnaceptable degree of risk  and uncertainty to any prospective new owner. So by putting is into Admininstration, Mel Morris massively strengthened Gibson's hand which in consequence has greatly increased the risk of liquidation precisely because it makes selling the club to new owners much more difficult to achieve.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Red Ram

[PistoldPete]

11 minutes ago, Red Ram said:

Again it seems far more likely that the opposite is the case. Whatever the basis for Gibson's grievance, on the face of it the case looks pretty groundless. if the club wasn't in administration it's almost certain that whoever the owner of Derby was would simply call Gibson's bluff and say see you in court. It's unlikely that Gibson would then pursue because he would be advised by his lawyers that the case would almost certainly be laughed out of court. It's only the fact that Mel Morris put us into administration that has given Gibson any leverage whatsover, because however unlikely it is that Gibson could win the case, the possibility that he might represents an unnaceptable degree of risk  and uncertainty to any prospective new owner. So by putting is into Admininstration, Mel Morris massively strengthened Gibson's hand which in consequence has greatly increased the risk of liquidation precisely because it makes selling the club to new owners much more difficult to achieve.

You assume of course Morris had any choice about putting us into admin.

And not only is Gibson’s action devoid of merit it is also devoid of morals. Some might have thought he would back off when Morris had gone and we were in financial distress. But he is proper merchant banker it seems.

[kevinhectoring]

55 minutes ago, Red Ram said:

Again it seems far more likely that the opposite is the case. Whatever the basis for Gibson's grievance, on the face of it the case looks pretty groundless. if the club wasn't in administration it's almost certain that whoever the owner of Derby was would simply call Gibson's bluff and say see you in court. It's unlikely that Gibson would then pursue because he would be advised by his lawyers that the case would almost certainly be laughed out of court. It's only the fact that Mel Morris put us into administration that has given Gibson any leverage whatsover, because however unlikely it is that Gibson could win the case, the possibility that he might represents an unnaceptable degree of risk  and uncertainty to any prospective new owner. So by putting is into Admininstration, Mel Morris massively strengthened Gibson's hand which in consequence has greatly increased the risk of liquidation precisely because it makes selling the club to new owners much more difficult to achieve.

Confused by your logic. But Gibson has leverage purely and simply because we need a sale. Hence the rational thing for the admins to do is pay him to slither away
 

[europia]

23 hours ago, Eatonram said:

But if the price offered is more than the likely teals from liquidation then surely it had to be considered?

Yes of course, and I imagine there is the number that will eventually have to be agreed upon. I doubt the debt to HMRC could be significantly reduced, otherwise it would set an unwanted precedent. Staged payments on that rather large chunk of debt is perhaps most likely to be on offer from HMRC. 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

I don't think Mel is pulling the strings, I think he is firmly holding onto them and isn't letting go.

[Ramleicester]

When the books are written in a few years on the saga of DCFC during the MM years (titles anyone?) The personal version from MM will clarify why he pulled the plug. 

It will say he simply was too worn out to carry on, that he totally lost faith in the governance of the EFL and that it had become personal to the point where (maybe for the first time in his life) he realised he could not win. Finally he will say that whilst he got a lot wrong, which he did, in the end he got fed up with the criticism from multiple directions. Anyone faced with this sort of combination would want to find a way out and this was in reality the only real option from his viewpoint.

He tried, he risked a lot and he failed. He sacrificed his most valuable personal asset, not his millions, but his ego and pride. Many football stories go like that.

DCFC will not go away a new story will start in the next few months.

[Ram1988]

Gibson needs to shut up and Mel needs to pay up (by helping clear some of the debt).