Jump to content

The Kirchner-Morris Summit Meeting

IslandExile

By IslandExile
in Derby County Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

Tamworthram

Tamworthram

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, StrawHillRam said:

I agree with CK. i wouldn’t deal with Morris as he’s not to be trusted

The trouble is, if Mel owns an asset you want then how can you avoid dealing with him unless you sit tight and wait for a third party (e.g. the council) to purchase the ground but then you still don’t own it.

Obviously, we don’t know exactly what’s going on but if one or both of them are indeed being stubborn then they need to get over it and get the deal done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Most active in this topic

Popular Days

Most active in this topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

CBRammette
CBRammette

Do we know he was drinking alcohol? Do we know re time? Do we know how long he was there? Do we know if it was an attempt to get to know Byrne/Laurence and perhaps others so they may sign a contract?

Comrade 86
Comrade 86

None of our business how Chris spends his free time. His life, his time, his money, his responsibility. Beggars belief that some on here have felt the need to pass judgement on him having a beer or tw

Sparkle
Sparkle

Well I am going out and having a cooked English breakfast and by the time I am home I expect everything sorted out  my source will be HP 

Posted Images

kevinhectoring

kevinhectoring

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

The problem with that is that CK has stated that he wants MM completely out of the equation.  This was just the other day, as he prepared to head over here.  It was said in such a way as to suggest he won't even want to rent/lease from him, let alone do a deal on buying it from him (now or in the future).  

Either MM needs to sell to a.n.other (who then rents to CK/DCFC, or CK needs to back down, and strike some sort of deal with MM.

... which brings us to this morning's impasse...  

the fact the two of them met suggests that CK has got beyond his refusal to deal with MM. Credit to CK 

it also suggests MM does not have some secret denouement planned with Ashley. Credit to MM 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevinhectoring

kevinhectoring

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

The trouble is, if Mel owns an asset you want then how can you avoid dealing with him unless you sit tight and wait for a third party (e.g. the council) to purchase the ground but then you still don’t own it.

It’s nothing to do with him ‘owning an asset’. MSD can take it off him tomorrow. It’s to do with whether he is willing to fill the funding gap, ie put more money in to ensure no further points deduction 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamworthram

Tamworthram

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

It’s nothing to do with him ‘owning an asset’. MSD can take it off him tomorrow. It’s to do with whether he is willing to fill the funding gap, ie put more money in to ensure no further points deduction 

Sorry, who are you talking about putting more money in? Surely you’re not expecting Mel to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Ramitupper said:

Here are some facts which might explain the impasse:

  1. The MSD debt is said to be around £23m. 
  2. The debt is OWED by DCFC (not by Mel Morris) but is secured against the Stadium.
  3. If MSD calls in the debt, then DCFC has to pay it, otherwise MSD will take the deeds to the stadium and will presumably sell to the highest bidder.
  4. DCFC has no means to pay the MSD debt.
  5. DCFC or KC have no means to buy the stadium

This means that whoever OWNS the stadium, ultimately is responsible for the MSD Debt.

I suspect MM wants to sell the ground, along with the MSD charge against it, for, say £20-23m.

This again means that the MSD debt doesn't get paid, and whoever then owns the stadium, is responsible for any default in debt repayments.

So I think what KC is saying is, MEL: Sell the stadium AND use the money to repay the debt to MSD.

And MEL is saying "Nope. The £20m debt is DCFC's debt. I've already lost £200m. So.... deal with it. That's what the administrators were called in for!!!

All in all, there are only 2 possible outcomes:

Mel caves and GIVES us back the stadium, or somebody with loads of cash buys the stadium....and the club....

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you...... MIKE ASHLEY!

If this is all true and the debt MSD debt is owed by DCFC but secured against a stadium not owned by DCFC, then surely it is not a football debt so DCFC can offer the same figure to MSD offered to the other creditors as part of the agreement to exit administration? This adds 6-8 million over three years to the purchase price. Might be a dealbreaker for Kirchner depending on whether or not he has any money. 

But if MSD doesn't accept, then do they simply inherit the ground from Mel? That seems to follow from the above. Then we can lease the ground from MSD and continue to play there. But this is dangerous if they screw us over in the future, even if it might sound an attractive proposition for now. But we need a way of still having a club and, while we'd like to know the long-term future was also secure, any future is better than no future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevinhectoring

kevinhectoring

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Sorry, who are you talking about putting more money in? Surely you’re not expecting Mel to?

Well he put more money in to fix Gibbo. But at the moment he’s refusing to put more in to pay off MSD/creditors.
 

My hunch is Q agreed with him in 2021 that if he handed over the stadium, he would not have to provide more funding. And that they got their sums wrong ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevinhectoring

kevinhectoring

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Carl Sagan said:

If this is all true and the debt MSD debt is owed by DCFC but secured against a stadium not owned by DCFC, then surely it is not a football debt so DCFC can offer the same figure to MSD offered to the other creditors as part of the agreement to exit administration?

No. Because MSD is a secured creditor holding a fixed and floating charge. The ‘other creditors’ are unsecured 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flying Fokker

Flying Fokker

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Ted McMinn Football Genius said:

How did Coventry get past that rule, they didn’t have a ground because of their unscrupulous owners. Subsequently they were vagabonds for several season and therefore can’t have had a “10 year agreement”. 
Or is this another rule theyve “made up” in the last few weeks/ months. 

I can help on this one. City fan born Derby due to home move when I was v young.  But still had this thing about Derby over the years.

It is going to be a rough ride if fans have to move away from the city.   The fans never forget.  And some followed the team to sixfields and st andrews. Crowds of 1800 turned up for some games.   etc etc etc.  Murderous.

The wiki account if broadly correct.    At the moment our illustrious owners are one season in to a 10 year agreement to play at The Coventry Building Society Arena (Formerly Ricoh Arena).  The owners say that they want to build a new stadium 8 miles away on Warwick University Campus...This should never happen please!

Anyway i've posted on here before that many fans will not travel out of principle.

The crowds at Sixfields were abysmal until the last couple of months.  Then they rose a bit, boosted by promotion chasing away supporters.   Sixfields was a no go for me.

On 3 May 2013, Coventry City put a contingency plan in place to play elsewhere for the 2013–14 season. It was argued by the club that this was due to ACL (Arena Coventry Limited), which managed the stadium, being unwilling to negotiate with the club to agree to a new lease. However, that led to the local newspaper, the Coventry Telegraph, starting a petition to stop Coventry City from playing outside of Coventry. It was sent to all 72 clubs in the Football League and Football League chairman Greg Clarke. In May 2013, managing director Tim Fisher set a plan of building a new stadium within the city over the next three years, and ground-sharing whilst the new ground was being built.[34] In June 2013, ACL made an offer that Coventry City F.C. could play at the Ricoh Arena rent free while the club was in administration.[35]

It was believed that Coventry City might ground-share with Walsall at the Bescot Stadium or attempt to stay at the Ricoh Arena,[36] following the appointment of new owners.[37] However, by July 2013, the Walsall rumours were denied and the club ground-shared at Northampton Town's Sixfields Stadium – a venue that had less than a quarter the capacity of the Ricoh Arena, and involved a round-trip of 70 miles (110 km). That arrangement was due to continue until at least 2016.[38][39] Plans for the club to play its home matches outside of the city were met with strong opposition, and led to protests by Coventry fans.[40] Member of parliament for Coventry South, Jim Cunningham, described the move as "a disgrace".[41

On 21 August 2014 it was announced that an agreement had been reached allowing the club to return to the Ricoh Arena for the next two years with the option of another two years.[42] Coventry City's first home game back at the Ricoh Arena was played against Gillingham on 5 September 2014. Steve Waggott, who led the negotiations for the club, said: "We are delighted to get this deal done and I am sure every supporter of Coventry City will be thrilled with the news."[11] City won their first match back at the Ricoh Arena 1–0 with Frank Nouble scoring the only goal of the match in front of 27,306 supporters.

The return followed a social media campaign entitled #bringCityhome by the Coventry Telegraph[43] and a protest march by the Sky Blue Trust supporters' group.[44] The campaign drew praise from national media and figures within the football world. It was short-listed at the 2014 British Press Awards in the "Campaign of the Year" category.[45]

Because the tenancy agreement with Wasps was to expire in August 2018, it was reported in November 2015 that there would be a relocation to another site within the city.[46] However it was later confirmed that Coventry City would remain at the Ricoh Arena for another year.[47]

In May 2016 the Coventry Telegraph broke the news that the club had drawn up plans with Coventry Rugby Club for a ground-share arrangement at a redeveloped Butts Park Arena.[48] That was eventually denied by Rugby Club chairman Jon Sharp, who said there could be no deal with the football club while it was still owned by SISU.[49]

St Andrew's[edit]

On 7 June 2019 it was reported that talks between SISU and Wasps had again broken down meaning that Coventry would have to play their 2019–20 home matches at Birmingham City's St Andrew's ground.[50]

The club had the option to spend a further two seasons away from Coventry[51] and remained at St Andrew's for the 2020–21 season.[52] The club returned to the Ricoh Arena in August 2021, ending the ground-share agreement between Coventry and Birmingham.

Edited by Flying Fokker
typo
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...