Jump to content


OTIB Supporter
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited



1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

2,566 profile views
  1. I'll wait to see what actually happened beforehand before commenting - selective clips are unhelpful.
  2. Yes - Unless somebody else comes in to pay the bills immediately after Kirchner walks and completes rapidly thereafter.
  3. I suspect so, all the EFL are interested in is that DCFC have security of tenure and it is clear that Kirchner is not taking ownership of the stadium, so from the EFL's perspective a lease is fine. It is also clear that Kirchner wants Morris out, so I suspect that Kirchner will only complete if the stadium is sold by Morris, so he has put that condition in his contract, hence the Quantuma comment. Provided all football creditors are paid, which they probably now have or will be from central distributions, the EFL don't care what the outcome regarding creditors is. They will apply the rules to the outcome. The membership agreement will outline what needs to happen to avoid any futher points deduction. There is also a subtle difference on timing. Quantuma say 'targeted for on or before 31 May', the EFL state 'Final approval is subject to [completion of the Purchase Agreement and] a lease ... by 31 May.'
  4. It will be dealt with through a CVA. No need for a 'cross class cram down' if agreed. I can't imagine that Kirchner would sign a conditional purchase contract without the parameters of the CVA agreed by the necessary parties. The next big event will be the 'retained list' I think the deadline for that is Saturday, will be a big pointer to how the business plan looks.
  5. All gone pear shaped again, would say imminently, but I understand that it has actually gone pear shaped!
  6. I bought 200 at around 50 cents around 2010 and sold out at $30 odd dollars each in 2011 .... stunning outcome at the time ...
  7. The Poznan debt doesn't appear to have been included, the UK football creditors are probably being paid off from Derby's share of central receipts The HMRC and MSD figures are roughly correct, as at 21 March 2022 the Administrators had received unsecured creditor claims of around 3 million.
  8. The difference isn't indicative of anything other than the directors not using the latest number, bear in mind that the August PAYE/NIC deductions are not due until 22 September, plus the September PAYE/NIC deductions for the period to the date of Administration, plus different parts of HMRC might be working different debts and then would be interest and penalties to consider.
  9. There is a moratorium in that a creditor cannot sue for a debt where the company is in a formal insolvency process. However the role as an Administrator is to act as an Officer of the Court in maximising the return the creditors existing at the date of the insolvency, racking up other debts is hard to reconcile with that role.
  10. Agreed. But it is also looking increasingly like Kirchner wants to buy the club and ground for virtually nothing. If he was as wealthy as he says he is, he could also solve the problem.
  11. Anything but. If Administrators are running a business they have to pay all the bills as they become due, or potentially have a personal liability. The modern definition of insolvency, in the sense of 'are you committing an offence by continuing to trade' is 'not being able to pay the bills as they become due.'
  • Create New...