The FBI have got the Kirch!

[Foreveram]

A maximum sentence of 180 years in prison.

[Eddie]

Just now, Foreveram said:

A maximum sentence of 180 years in prison.

Crikey. That's nearly as bad as supporting Florist.

[GenBr]

1 hour ago, WystonRam said:

Preston saw through him immediatley.

Yes it only took them choosing him as preferred bidder, giving him a couple of months of exclusivity in which he twice offered lower bids and then no sign of any money turning up for them to see straight through him. Truly Preston have put us to shame by doing the exact same thing as us

[WystonRam]

Just now, GenBr said:

Yes it only took them choosing him as preferred bidder, giving him a couple of months of exclusivity in which he twice offered lower bids and then no sign of any money turning up for them to see straight through him. Truly Preston have put us to shame by doing the exact same thing as us

I sam not sure I said they put us to Shane, but their due diligence was way better than Quantuma.

[Foreveram]

Just now, WystonRam said:

I sam not sure I said they put us to Shane, but their due diligence was way better than Quantuma.

[vonwright]

2 hours ago, Mihangel said:

They aren't, or shouldn't be, powerless - I cannot believe that neither the EFL nor the administrators had a robust process in place to validate the source of funds, it's a very normal practice and one that perhaps the banks did properly and hence the money never materialised. At best, the EFL and the administrators could be considered a little negligent.

I tend to agree with this. I take Angie's point completely about "where do we draw the line?" but I think my answer would be "somewhere after this guy". At the moment it feels like there is barely a line at all.

I'm sure proper auditing wouldn't come cheap, and both the government and EFL are probably worried that fans (who tend to get excited about any proposed sale, and aren't the best at asking difficult questions) would see them as "the bad guy". But keeping people like this out of football isn't being "the bad guy". It's doing your job as the regulator, and protector, of the game. 

[Kernow]

[GenBr]

1 hour ago, WystonRam said:

I sam not sure I said they put us to Shane, but their due diligence was way better than Quantuma.

Their due diligence was better than Quantumas despite him getting to the exact same stage with both us and Preston?

[SSD]

Are we able to get the local Derby MP to investigate the EFL and the administrators? Use their parliamentary privilege? If he is found guilty then this clearly demonstrates the lack of process when vetting a new potential owner. They were so close to letting this through. 

I praise Mr Clowes even more for being professional with the EFL and rebuilding the relationship. I don't think 99% of DCFC supporters would have the patience and right headspace to deal with that horrible, parasite ridden, corrupt organisation.

[duncanjwitham]

24 minutes ago, SSD said:

 this clearly demonstrates the lack of process when vetting a new potential owner. They were so close to letting this through. 

It's very easy to say "he shouldn't have been allowed to" after the fact, but much harder to put in a set of rules that catches people like Kirchner before.  As has been said already, he's managed to convince Quantuma, the EFL, Preston, Rooney/Stretford and co that he was fine.  He's managed to convince the likes of Goldman Sachs to invest in his company.  So he was clearly capable of passing any of the sort of financial/company-ownership checks that could be done.

You could start doing non-financial/ownership checks (some sort of "we only want people with a track record of working in football" or something), but then you probably end up blocking David Clowes too.  (And as an aside, I'd love to see what kind of checks people think would pass Clowes but not allow someone like Mel Morris through.)

So you're left with the "put £Xm in escrow upfront"-type checks, but that's basically where we got to with Kirchner anyway.  He couldn't produce the money so the deal fell through (and so the process worked, arguably???).  You can demand it earlier in the process, but that's just going to put off the majority of owners.  If you're spending millions on a football club, you almost certainly don't have that cash sitting in a bank account somewhere ready to go.  You will be borrowing some (from a bank or through investors), or liquidating some of your personal assets in some way, and potential owners aren't going to start doing either of those things until the deal is actually going through (which again, is where the Kirchner deal actually fell through.)

[Mihangel]

3 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

It's very easy to say "he shouldn't have been allowed to" after the fact, but much harder to put in a set of rules that catches people like Kirchner before.  As has been said already, he's managed to convince Quantuma, the EFL, Preston, Rooney/Stretford and co that he was fine.  He's managed to convince the likes of Goldman Sachs to invest in his company.  So he was clearly capable of passing any of the sort of financial/company-ownership checks that could be done.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges there, Goldman Sachs are looking at the future, they're making an investment or, a bet. They are looking at projections, the product and of course the people and they've made a decision that the risk was worthwhile. And who knows, it may well be. The EFL and Quantama should be looking at the past, very specifically, what is the provenance of this money? It's very basic anti money laundering processes, maybe they don't consider this important??

3 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

So you're left with the "put £Xm in escrow upfront"-type checks, but that's basically where we got to with Kirchner anyway.  He couldn't produce the money so the deal fell through (and so the process worked, arguably???).  You can demand it earlier in the process, but that's just going to put off the majority of owners.  If you're spending millions on a football club, you almost certainly don't have that cash sitting in a bank account somewhere ready to go.  You will be borrowing some (from a bank or through investors), or liquidating some of your personal assets in some way, and potential owners aren't going to start doing either of those things until the deal is actually going through (which again, is where the Kirchner deal actually fell through.)

Again, I think many are misunderstanding what the problem is - It's not about whether the money exists, it's relatively easy to show I've got x in my bank account, (for a short period at least!), it's about asking where the money came from. That's what the UK bank will have done and that's almost certainly why he couldn't move the money accross. So the financial services process worked, the processes of the football regulators and the club's adminstrators failed miserably.

[Mihangel]

6 hours ago, vonwright said:

I tend to agree with this. I take Angie's point completely about "where do we draw the line?" but I think my answer would be "somewhere after this guy". At the moment it feels like there is barely a line at all.

I'm sure proper auditing wouldn't come cheap, and both the government and EFL are probably worried that fans (who tend to get excited about any proposed sale, and aren't the best at asking difficult questions) would see them as "the bad guy". But keeping people like this out of football isn't being "the bad guy". It's doing your job as the regulator, and protector, of the game. 

100% - In fact, it's not an expensive process, the onus is on the individual to prove the background of the cash, all you have to do is ask!

[Vimto Enjoyer]

5 hours ago, SSD said:

Are we able to get the local Derby MP to investigate the EFL and the administrators? Use their parliamentary privilege? If he is found guilty then this clearly demonstrates the lack of process when vetting a new potential owner. They were so close to letting this through. 

I praise Mr Clowes even more for being professional with the EFL and rebuilding the relationship. I don't think 99% of DCFC supporters would have the patience and right headspace to deal with that horrible, parasite ridden, corrupt organisation.

I fear you may be expecting a bit much from your local Derby MP. 

[May Contain Nuts]

 

1 hour ago, Mihangel said:

100% - In fact, it's not an expensive process, the onus is on the individual to prove the background of the cash, all you have to do is ask!

...but just because you ask doesn't mean that the answer you get back will be honest or true, or that the person you're asking doesn't have a further dossier of false info & references that backs up their claims. That's how conmen work!

There's only so much you can ask to see before any bidder will say enough's enough and walk away, and let's not pretend we had a queue of people waving banknotes in our faces -  all of the other potential bidders were stringing it along with their own b******* and promises of offers that never formally materialised, until Mr Clowes came along.

1 hour ago, Mihangel said:

So the financial services process worked, the processes of the football regulators and the club's adminstrators failed miserably

I dare say this would have been the case completely regardless of who the administrators were, given all the shenanigans involved around them and the almost-impossible sell the club was in the state Mel left it.

Quantuma's biggest mistake was taking the case on at all. There was an extraordinary amount of sniping from the sidelines (including by others who deemed it too complicated a job) and, although they certainly didn't help themselves at times, the smear campaign conducted by the EFL, Gibson, Couhig, Mike Ashley & the media was something to behold.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Kokosnuss

[europia]

On 04/05/2023 at 19:27, Vimto Enjoyer said:

I fear you may be expecting a bit much from your local Derby MP. 

Local Tory MP .....so no one should be surprised.