Derby County

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

There have been a  lot of pages added since I last ventured on to this thread, could someone give a precis version of where Derby are at currently, deadlines etc please as it seems they are back in the realms of closure to me? @Mr Popodopolouswould you mind Sir?

Thanks.

Hi Ska- will give it a go Sir.

It's such a fast moving story but...

1. Kirchner's deadline was 5pm Friday to definitively get it done- and this was not met!
2. Ashley seems to be strongly interested but may or may not have an amount to avoid -15 and or meet requirements- doesn't want to pay the full fees of Quantuma reportedly.
3. Morgan may- or may not be keen...
4. Referring back to Point 1, their statement was quite strong- think the EFL are fuming,
5. Appleby is still in the running, potentially.
6. Fixtures are out in a fortnight- no deal by then would cast serious doubt on Derby's ability to play next season...
7. ...Although Simon Stone of BBC said the EFL COULD let them start next season in admin- they technically have 18 months to find a buyer so until mid-late March 2023- if they could provide a) Proof of funding and b) A breakeven position for next season- although if an entity breaks even why would it need funding in addition?
8. Dorsett also mentioned two unnabmed bidders.

Clear as mud and every journo/outlet seems to have a slightly different slant but hope it helps.

[BTRFTG]

40 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

However much Derby as a business deserve everything and more, I am not sure that even Derby fans deserve this!

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jun/11/mike-ashley-tells-derby-administrators-he-is-willing-and-ready-to-transact

No wonder The Gruaniad is a busted flush, a begging letter with attached articles.

So Ashley is 'willing to transact' which could mean anything. He also requires 'security', does that imply he wants his bid costs underwritten if unsuccessful? What's he afraid of? I've run some very large procurements in my time and I can tell you for nothing any bidder who requests to have their prospective bid costs underwritten (save if it's a highly bespoke or ultra high risk delivery) gets thrown out the moment they ask as it's indicative of problems ahead.

[BTRFTG]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hi Ska- will give it a go Sir.

It's such a fast moving story but...

1. Kirchner's deadline was 5pm Friday to definitively get it done- and this was not met!
2. Ashley seems to be strongly interested but may or may not have an amount to avoid -15 and or meet requirements- doesn't want to pay the full fees of Quantuma reportedly.
3. Morgan may- or may not be keen...
4. Referring back to Point 1, their statement was quite strong- think the EFL are fuming,
5. Appleby is still in the running, potentially.
6. Fixtures are out in a fortnight- no deal by then would cast serious doubt on Derby's ability to play next season...
7. ...Although Simon Stone of BBC said the EFL COULD let them start next season in admin- they technically have 18 months to find a buyer so until mid-late March 2023- if they could provide a) Proof of funding and b) A breakeven position for next season- although if an entity breaks even why would it need funding in addition?
8. Dorsett also mentioned two unnabmed bidders.

Clear as mud and every journo/outlet seems to have a slightly different slant but hope it helps.

You've missed a key point. Within the next month they'll also have to had assembled and registered a squad of players prior to the season starting. They'll need upward of 20. 

I don't believe the EFL allow the use of weekly or 'pay as you play' contracts these days, given you may play for only a couple of clubs each season. Assuming they find players desperate enough to agree one year deals with nil signing on fees and say only £1k a week, they'd need a £1m or more in the bank to allow that number of contracts to be signed. Note, they can't play kids or youths more than a couple of times before paying the full contract rates, hence the talent they were forced to let go end of last season when his trainee terms were exhausted and they'd have had to have paid him full rate, which they couldn't afford.

Retained lists are already out and there are several hundred players seeking jobs. Would you risk hanging around for Derby's terms in the knowledge they might not exist when there are plenty of guaranteed offers out there? If waiting last minute to save money Derby will be playing with Poundland discounted broken biscuits next year, and who'd want to cough up money for that?

[Mr Popodopolous]

As for the £30m I assume that is without stadium- the stadium too, all-in would probably bump it up to something between £50-55m.

Of course club owning ground would be suspect under the 'Agreed Decision' and change to reporting entities- and yes clubs can still be bound by these potentially. A reminder. 

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-8-investigations-and-disciplinary-proceedings/

[BTRFTG]

Because I'm sad, I can, plus my love of the NFL I eek out my retirement reading up on such matters as the wonderous complexities of the Salary Cap. Which led me to think how any prospective purchaser of Derby might risk price contingent liabilities of players contracts? In the NFL this is comparatively easy, its there in black and white on a freely accessible and daily updated database.

Now I've no idea which 5 players remain contracted to Derby, or what their contracts are valued at, or which terms apply. I've no idea either whether (in NFL terminology) Derby hold 'dead money' liability, that being to players beyond the 5 who no longer play for the club else may even have retired.

In the EFL should Derby fold all contract values outstanding immediately become 'football related debt' and are the first to get paid out. So with my Mike Ashley hat on I'd certainly need to understand what that contingent liability might be before making an offer (this isn't debt as now reported, but could be to a new owner should things go pear shaped.)

Edited June 11, 2022 by BTRFTG

[BTRFTG]

24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As for the £30m I assume that is without stadium- the stadium too, all-in would probably bump it up to something between £50-55m.

Of course club owning ground would be suspect under the 'Agreed Decision' and change to reporting entities- and yes clubs can still be bound by these potentially. A reminder. 

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-8-investigations-and-disciplinary-proceedings/

As I wrote previously it's not just about things like the physical stadium. The EFL requires all sorts of indemnities and insurances from the member club, not only the stadium landlord. Many such indemnities and insurances will be linked or mirrored to similar held by other parties, but it's for the club to have ensured they're registered in time. There's quite a list, all cost and one assumes Q have maintained these so as to have a club to sell, but what if to save monies they've been back ended? Stranger things have happened than running out of time having left oneself with too much work to complete.

[Ska Junkie]

49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hi Ska- will give it a go Sir.

It's such a fast moving story but...

1. Kirchner's deadline was 5pm Friday to definitively get it done- and this was not met!
2. Ashley seems to be strongly interested but may or may not have an amount to avoid -15 and or meet requirements- doesn't want to pay the full fees of Quantuma reportedly.
3. Morgan may- or may not be keen...
4. Referring back to Point 1, their statement was quite strong- think the EFL are fuming,
5. Appleby is still in the running, potentially.
6. Fixtures are out in a fortnight- no deal by then would cast serious doubt on Derby's ability to play next season...
7. ...Although Simon Stone of BBC said the EFL COULD let them start next season in admin- they technically have 18 months to find a buyer so until mid-late March 2023- if they could provide a) Proof of funding and b) A breakeven position for next season- although if an entity breaks even why would it need funding in addition?
8. Dorsett also mentioned two unnabmed bidders.

Clear as mud and every journo/outlet seems to have a slightly different slant but hope it helps.

Thanks Mr P, much appreciated. They're STILL in limbo then essentially?

At some point, something has to give, one way or, unfortunately for DCFC, the other? Starting the season still in limbo is surely asking for issues with the EFL, no matter how accommodating they are isn't it?

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

New statement by Quantuma. 

[cheese]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

New statement by Quantuma. 

This can't be real - doesn't contain the words imminent or shortly.

[Dr Balls]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

No wonder The Gruaniad is a busted flush, a begging letter with attached articles.

So Ashley is 'willing to transact' which could mean anything. He also requires 'security', does that imply he wants his bid costs underwritten if unsuccessful? What's he afraid of? I've run some very large procurements in my time and I can tell you for nothing any bidder who requests to have their prospective bid costs underwritten (save if it's a highly bespoke or ultra high risk delivery) gets thrown out the moment they ask as it's indicative of problems ahead.

Tbf to the Grauniad it’s from the Press Association. I wouldn’t trust Mike Ashley with a pub team but I guess after the sports-washing Saudi buyout of Newcastle he has some money burning a hole in his back pocket. 
 

If true, (big if) it’s a bit like Ken Bayes going to Leeds. Out of the frying pan into the fire!

[PHILINFRANCE]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

No wonder The Gruaniad is a busted flush, a begging letter with attached articles.

Hmmm.

I assume you are referring to The Grauniad Newspepar .

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

New statement by Quantuma. 

Actually, that's very telling and an eye opener to many (though unsurprising) re Ashley. So if Q are to be believed (why else would they put out this statement,) Ashley's initial 'unsubstantiated' offer failed two mandatory EFL requirements, something one imagines the owner of a once Championship club would have understood prior to submitting the offer. Ashley chancing his arm, as is his right? Why am I not surprised? That he now wishes to re-engage, why did he wait so long post initial rebuttal? Why create the smokescreen of non-engagement?

Q's non-committal is exactly what one would expect in their role, that's what they're obliged to do. Lest not forget, they're tasked to sell a barely polished turd.

42 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Hmmm.

I assume you are referring to The Grauniad Newspepar .

If only you'd appended a begging letter to your response Phil......

Edited June 11, 2022 by BTRFTG

[Midred]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

New statement by Quantuma. 

I'm completely useless with legal terminology but when they say "joint" administrators who else are involved? 

[Bristol Rob]

9 minutes ago, Midred said:

I'm completely useless with legal terminology but when they say "joint" administrators who else are involved? 

Cheech & Chong

[BTRFTG]

20 minutes ago, Midred said:

I'm completely useless with legal terminology but when they say "joint" administrators who else are involved? 

The 'administrator' is a single, named individual. I forget their names but I think there were 3 or 4 Quantuma directors named as 'joint administrators'. This is normal in large, complex jobs given should a single, named individual fall ill or get waylaid the others can take over.

Edited June 11, 2022 by BTRFTG

[chinapig]

4 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The 'administrator' is a single, named individual. I forget their names but I think there were 3 or 4 Quantuma directors named as 'joint administrators'. This is normal in large, complex jobs given should a single, named individual fall ill or get waylaid the others can take over.

Plus an administrator must be a qualified insolvency practitioner. Often more than one administrator is appointed to act jointly or separately, so that each administrator can act alone if necessary.

Which means in this case Quantuma is a partnership of individual administrators hence "joint administrators" .

[Barrieowl]

Hopefully the club is saved but they've been allowed a lot of leeway and time to sort it and there has to be a final deadline on it all.

 

 

[Lrrr]

I won’t believe it’s coming to an end for the club until I see a countdown timer on sky sports news 

[Ska Junkie]

1 hour ago, Barrieowl said:

Hopefully the club is saved but they've been allowed a lot of leeway and time to sort it and there has to be a final deadline on it all.

 

 

That I agree with. I've no wish to see any club die but there has to be a point where a deadline is, a very unfortunate deadline.

[East Londoner]

I’ve no particular beef with Derby but surely the time has come for a so called big club to be allowed to die as a warning to every other club including ours that lives beyond its means 

In the last twenty years we’ve had this with Leeds and Portsmouth and Bolton and if Derby survive it’s only a matter of time before some other club gets into this sort of mess 

The fact they’re a so called big club means they’ve already been given a lot more leeway than Bury did for example and the time has come to set a hard deadline with an explicit warning that if it’s missed they be expelled from the league 

Having a bigger club die would hopefully focus some minds on reform which probably wouldn’t happen otherwise and deal with the financial gulf between the premier league and the championship whilst levelling the playing field in the championship. None of this is likely to happen when clubs are allowed to soldier on having paid only a fraction of their debts 

[Coombsy]

Mel chose this bunch of Administrators and he's been pulling the strings. It's been obvious that he did'nt want Mike Ashley and now it's all balls up. The transfer window is now open, rumours are the current contracted players have'nt been paid for June. Agents for the ones out of contract will be seeking other clubs for them. Other rumour I've heard that so far these clowns have taken £8m in wages from the Rams, no wonder why they were pushing sales through on players to line their pockets. They won't get another job with any other stricken club after their balls up at Derby 

 

taken from 

Derby site

[chinapig]

26 minutes ago, Coombsy said:

Mel chose this bunch of Administrators and he's been pulling the strings. It's been obvious that he did'nt want Mike Ashley and now it's all balls up. The transfer window is now open, rumours are the current contracted players have'nt been paid for June. Agents for the ones out of contract will be seeking other clubs for them. Other rumour I've heard that so far these clowns have taken £8m in wages from the Rams, no wonder why they were pushing sales through on players to line their pockets. They won't get another job with any other stricken club after their balls up at Derby 

 

taken from 

Derby site

They are right about Morris but the players have been paid for May (though it isn't clear by whom) and June wages are not due until the end of the month.

Quantuma say they have not been paid anything yet and it is perfectly possible they don't get paid until the job is done. Others on here will know if that's normal practice.

But I suspect they only got this job because better practitioners wouldn't do it due to Morris not putting the stadium company into administration. A poisoned chalice.

[BTRFTG]

22 minutes ago, chinapig said:

They are right about Morris but the players have been paid for May (though it isn't clear by whom) and June wages are not due until the end of the month.

Quantuma say they have not been paid anything yet and it is perfectly possible they don't get paid until the job is done. Others on here will know if that's normal practice.

But I suspect they only got this job because better practitioners wouldn't do it due to Morris not putting the stadium company into administration. A poisoned chalice.

They'll get paid at the end, assuming that is there's anything with which to pay them, hence why they're top of the payment pile.

I'm not sure how or why you'd put the stadium company into administration? At best it's an asset holding with rents due from the football club and marginal ougoings, else it's just a company holding the asset, hence cash neutral. Provided the value of the related charge doesn't exceed the asset value (it's £81m, after all ) the company is in no danger of failing to meet its obligations.

PoF continues to make very disparaging, though veiled,  comments about Q  that may be valid save without making explicit accusation as to what they're doing wrong that's an unfair position to adopt should the be unable to answer back. There may be good reason for Q maintaining silence, could even be they've signed binding agreements to that effect. Fact is none of us know. Interesting to note Q's threat to take action against any attempting to disparage their reputation.

The silence, too, works in Ashley's favour. He's looking to buy the name, EFL share and assets only whilst not absorbing any existing liabilities. Best way for that to happen is to push Derby to the brink such he's their only saviour, then hoping that political pressure, which he knows exists at the highest level of Government, will trump normal business practice and logic and get him what he wants.

[CyderInACan]

45 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Best way for that to happen is to push Derby to the brink such he's their only saviour, then hoping that political pressure, which he knows exists at the highest level of Government, will trump normal business practice and logic and get him what he wants.

It shouldn’t though, should it. 

[The Batman]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

 

Quantuma say they have not been paid anything yet and it is perfectly possible they don't get paid until the job is done. Others on here will know if that's normal practice.

 

It is. I don't work for an insolvency practitioners but I work in corporate restructuring in the insurance world. We receive payment for our services upon closure of the case. Ie sale completions for properties under lpa receiverships or sale of assets / purchasing of the company that is in administration. 

The longer the case is with us, the more money it costs and it just builds and builds. But we act as a secured creditor so we will get paid upon the cancellation. The IP's will be the same. 

[BTRFTG]

21 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

It shouldn’t though, should it. 

Exactly! It should have nothing to do with politics. Derby (football clubs) should be treated as any other business and if they need and deserve to go bust they should.

[Leveller]

6 hours ago, East Londoner said:

I’ve no particular beef with Derby but surely the time has come for a so called big club to be allowed to die as a warning to every other club including ours that lives beyond its means 

In the last twenty years we’ve had this with Leeds and Portsmouth and Bolton and if Derby survive it’s only a matter of time before some other club gets into this sort of mess 

The fact they’re a so called big club means they’ve already been given a lot more leeway than Bury did for example and the time has come to set a hard deadline with an explicit warning that if it’s missed they be expelled from the league 

Having a bigger club die would hopefully focus some minds on reform which probably wouldn’t happen otherwise and deal with the financial gulf between the premier league and the championship whilst levelling the playing field in the championship. None of this is likely to happen when clubs are allowed to soldier on having paid only a fraction of their debts 

I suspect they’ve been given time because there was a real prospect of a buyer - which there probably wasn’t with the likes of Bury. A big name club is simply a more saleable asset with more prospect of becoming a going concern.

[View from the Dolman]

Another EFL statement... 

 

[Buster Footman's T shirt]

2 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Another EFL statement... 

 

Sounds like this could actually be the beginning of the endgame. Cogs starting to turn towards expulsion sooner rather than later? Seems a lot more bullish from the EFL than previously.  

[Monkeh]

4 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Another EFL statement... 

 

Putting their foot down and the first step in throwing them out of the league has been taken,

Reads as if any patients the efl had has now gone