Kirchner- A risk or a potential reward

[Foreveram]

1 minute ago, LERam said:

I honestly think after reading that article, that he has transferred the money out his company "investing" account, of which he only has access.

He's got this money sitting in his account or a holding account which he has shown as proof

He's gone to transfer millions, money laundering has asked more questions, he's got cold feet as its not really his own personal wealth.

I think his crypto story is fabricated as he knows it's impossible for anyone to verify it.

 

[RamuelLJackson]

1 hour ago, LERam said:

I honestly think after reading that article, that he has transferred the money out his company "investing" account, of which he only has access.

He's got this money sitting in his account or a holding account which he has shown as proof

He's gone to transfer millions, money laundering has asked more questions, he's got cold feet as its not really his own personal wealth.

I think his crypto story is fabricated as he knows it's impossible for anyone to verify it.

 

This is pretty much exactly the take I came away with too.

[G STAR RAM]

7 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

The value of the ground is a weird thing though.  Yes it's worth ~£80m, and yes it would cost something in that ballpark to build an equivalent replacement (if that became a relevant consideration), but in functional terms it's not value you can do much with.  It's not like buying a house, where you can live in it for a few years and then sell it for a profit.  It's value (in monetary terms anyway) comes entirely from it's ability to host football matches, and you can do that almost as well in a rented stadium.  You're basically paying £20m+ to save £1-2m in annual rent.

And "had we remained" is doing a lot of work for your other point.  Even if we'd been taken over in January, kept Jagielka etc, there's no guarantee we stay up and no guarantee we extend anybody's contracts.  And given the current state of the transfer market, there's no guarantee they're worth £30m+ either.

The ground generates income from much more than the football club and has potential for much more.

Accept the point re player valuers but think even the administrators valued the squad at £18m from memory.

[RAM1966]

7 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said:

I said in a previous post...that the internet is a wonderful tool for + or - projects, It's documented that large companies were chucking his company millions of $s, I assume they went into the companies bank account, A simple print off with references, Bank statements, Company credentials, All the things that's needed to move forward, It's been said that Q, EFL and even Nixon "SAW THE FUNDS" what did they see...£23million pounds stacked against a wall or a bank statement saying there's money there and has been transferred. 

Now for an old timer like me I can struggle with the intricacies of the Internet, But there's organisations out there...legitimate/illegal that can produce miracles out of thin air.

My question is this...what did the 3 above see?  

Nixon claimed to have seen the funds, the reality is probably different, why would Kirchner show a red top journalist the funds, no benefit in it.  Nixon has regularly been economical with the truth and tries to look more in the know than he actually is, Nixon assured us all that there was nothing to worry about, he called out all of the critics that saw what was coming. 

Nixon has gone awfully quite regarding Derby as he knows he's been made to look a complete tool by Kirchner.  

Edited July 22, 2022 by RAM1966

[Ram-Alf]

19 minutes ago, RAM1966 said:

Nixon claimed to have seen the funds,

Nixon has gone awfully quite regarding Derby as he knows he's been made to look a complete tool by Kirchner.  

Q are on record saying they are aware that the EFL were feeding "x" concerning information and stopped talking to the EFL...Nixon's source was the EFL, So if Q are right Nixon saw what the EFL saw.

Nixon has gone quiet because there is no news to report from the EFL regarding DCFC.

[Elwood P Dowd]

1 hour ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Q are on record saying they are aware that the EFL were feeding "x" concerning information and stopped talking to the EFL...Nixon's source was the EFL, So if Q are right Nixon saw what the EFL saw.

Nixon has gone quiet because there is no news to report from the EFL regarding DCFC.

Good point ?

[alram]

16 hours ago, RAM1966 said:

Nixon claimed to have seen the funds, the reality is probably different, why would Kirchner show a red top journalist the funds, no benefit in it.  Nixon has regularly been economical with the truth and tries to look more in the know than he actually is, Nixon assured us all that there was nothing to worry about, he called out all of the critics that saw what was coming. 

Nixon has gone awfully quite regarding Derby as he knows he's been made to look a complete tool by Kirchner.  

He made himself look like a tool 

 

he was sacked from somewhere because of a conflict of interest with Stratford before , Nixon was in it for self interest once again. he is a grade A t***** that had no concern or bother about derby or our fans.

 

I will never forget when we were at our lowest point and everything was crumbling around us, he was the lone voice calling us idiots and clowns for us worrying. Everything was gonna be fine he said whilst every other journalist reported collapse.

 

NEVER FORGET

[RoyMac5]

19 minutes ago, alram said:

Nixon was in it for self interest once again. he is a grade A t***** that had no concern or bother about derby or our fans.

That isn't true, he is very much a football man, and when push came to shove called out the EFL for their behaviour. He may have got Kirchner wrong but then so did lots of others.

[Mucker1884]

3 hours ago, alram said:

He made himself look like a tool 

 

he was sacked from somewhere because of a conflict of interest with Stratford before , Nixon was in it for self interest once again. he is a grade A t***** that had no concern or bother about derby or our fans.

 

I will never forget when we were at our lowest point and everything was crumbling around us, he was the lone voice calling us idiots and clowns for us worrying. Everything was gonna be fine he said whilst every other journalist reported collapse.

 

NEVER FORGET

I'm not defending the bloke... I don't know him, and read very little of his work... but from your post... particularly your last para... it seems he was the only one to get it right?  Everything is fine, and we haven't collapsed!  

?‍♂️

 

[alram]

3 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

That isn't true, he is very much a football man, and when push came to shove called out the EFL for their behaviour. He may have got Kirchner wrong but then so did lots of others.

he didnt give a toss, he was pally with stretford who was going to give him all insider details

 

he is not a football man, cant believe anybody would suggest he is. he is in it for himself, thats why he works for the sun, thats why he makes idiots pay for a patreon page to listen to his rubbish.

 

it is baffling that anybody holds him in a favourable opinion, he is the lowest of the low as a journalist.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/sep/03/theindependent.pressandpublishing

[Rammy03]

 

[rsmini]

 

[vonwright]

Of course this makes you wonder about the fit and proper person rules, but in our case we also had administrators whose sole purpose was to find an appropriate buyer. I've spent a lot of time sympathising with them - they can hardly magic up a bid from nowhere, and we were very hard to sell - but it feels like an awful lot of time and effort was spent pandering to this guy's bs when perhaps it would have been better spent asking questions

Edited July 26, 2022 by vonwright

[duncanjwitham]

27 minutes ago, vonwright said:

Of course this makes you wonder about the fit and proper person rules, but in our case we also had administrators whose sole purpose was to find an appropriate buyer. I've spent a lot of time sympathising with them - they can hardly magic up a bid from nowhere, and we were very hard to sell - but it feels like an awful lot of time and effort was spent pandering to this guy's bs when perhaps it would have been better spent asking questions

For all the talk about these rules, I have yet to see any remotely sensible suggestion as to what an improved/toughened-up set would actually look like.  There's certainly nothing immediately obvious that would pass David Clowes but reject Mel Morris, for example.  And if Kirchner has £100m sat in a bank account, is the CEO of a biggish company, and has no previous history of anything illegal (or even dodgy), then what do you actually test for?

The only remotely plausible suggestion is some kind of escrow type requirement, where a potential owner has to put any money that he commits to the club spending into an escrow account himself.  But then you're massively ramping up the short-term cost to buy a club.  Would Clowes still have bought the club if he was required to put away another say £10m, with no guarantee he would ever get it back?  Or £20m? Or £30m?  Would Gadsby and co have saved us last time if they had to find another £5m or £10m from somewhere?

[Wolfie]

5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

For all the talk about these rules, I have yet to see any remotely sensible suggestion as to what an improved/toughened-up set would actually look like.  There's certainly nothing immediately obvious that would pass David Clowes but reject Mel Morris, for example.  And if Kirchner has £100m sat in a bank account, is the CEO of a biggish company, and has no previous history of anything illegal (or even dodgy), then what do you actually test for?

Exactly........far be it from me to defend the administrators.....

[Gone]

If CK somehow had managed to get his imaginary money across the line and purchase us, we’d have ended up liquidated by Christmas. 
How the Admins and the EFL nearly let this happened needs investigating asap. 

[Reggie Greenwood]

1 minute ago, TexasRam said:

If CK somehow had managed to get his imaginary money across the line and purchase us, we’d have ended up liquidated by Christmas. 
How the Admins and the EFL nearly let this happened needs investigating asap. 

If big American  financial institutions like Goldman Sachs’s etc have been funding Kirchner / Sylnc then I’m pretty sure that would have had a bearing on the Q/ EFL decision ? If he could /is fooling massive financial corporations I doubt the EFL and Admin would fare much better sussing him out. 
That’s from a person who is no fan of Q or EFL 

[TigerTedd]

4 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

10 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

If CK somehow had managed to get his imaginary money across the line and purchase us, we’d have ended up liquidated by Christmas. 
How the Admins and the EFL nearly let this happened needs investigating asap. 

But didn’t the system work? They went through various checks and measures, including the fit and proper persons test, but when it came to the last one, show us the money, he got cold feet and pulled out. So surely something in that last test caught something that was missed in all the others, that’s why it exists. So the point is, he didn’t end up owning us, so the system works. 

the depressing thing is how much time was wasted coming to that conclusion. 

[vonwright]

1 hour ago, duncanjwitham said:

For all the talk about these rules, I have yet to see any remotely sensible suggestion as to what an improved/toughened-up set would actually look like.  There's certainly nothing immediately obvious that would pass David Clowes but reject Mel Morris, for example.  And if Kirchner has £100m sat in a bank account, is the CEO of a biggish company, and has no previous history of anything illegal (or even dodgy), then what do you actually test for?

The only remotely plausible suggestion is some kind of escrow type requirement, where a potential owner has to put any money that he commits to the club spending into an escrow account himself.  But then you're massively ramping up the short-term cost to buy a club.  Would Clowes still have bought the club if he was required to put away another say £10m, with no guarantee he would ever get it back?  Or £20m? Or £30m?  Would Gadsby and co have saved us last time if they had to find another £5m or £10m from somewhere?

Not sure why you would reject Mel, to be honest. He had the money, just spent it in an incredibly reckless way. I don't see how any fit and proper persons test could or should exclude him (although arguably it should exclude him from being able to own another club in the future).

Kirchner is quite different. Even if we accept he "had the money" (What money? Whose money?) I think some basic checks on where this money came from, and how his businesses were being run might have thrown up at least some red flags.

For all that people are saying 'the system worked!' it seems like both the admins and the EFL were perfectly happy, and it was left to the American financial authorities to step in and freeze the deal, and journalists to reveal the turmoil at Kirchner's company.

I accept there is a limit to the investigations the EFL can do into a potential buyer, but I'd suggest they should be doing a lot more than the currently seem to do. 

Edited July 26, 2022 by vonwright

[Gone]

36 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

But didn’t the system work? They went through various checks and measures, including the fit and proper persons test, but when it came to the last one, show us the money, he got cold feet and pulled out. So surely something in that last test caught something that was missed in all the others, that’s why it exists. So the point is, he didn’t end up owning us, so the system works. 

the depressing thing is how much time was wasted coming to that conclusion. 

I’m not sure, he didn’t get us because he didn’t have real money (allegedly) and managed to string us on as preferred  bidder that was approved by both parties.