BTRFTG

If the administrators are not allowed to sign players whilst the club remains in administration how might Derby start the season with but 5 players under contract?

Favours given Derby simply send the message that if one is to gamble and go bust, do it large. If the EFL bend over backwards to allow clubs to retain their membership after entering administration, dumping their debt on the non-footballing suckers who've supported them, only to emerge with a clean slate , why go under for £1m? Why not make it £10m or £50m or £100m if the ultimate outcome is the same? Makes a whole mockery of FFP & P&S. The EFL MUST continue to punish Derby for every advantage they might gain against their peers should they survive this. Say HMRC let Derby off £20m of debt; the EFL should have a rolling programme to deduct from their distributions to Derby an equivalent amount and distribute that amongst other members.

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.

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.

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.

After the shambles this week I didn't bother watching tonight though my bet slip says Tammy F didn't muster a shot on target. Perchance stuck on a Parson St platform?

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

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.

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.)

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?

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.

The price of what? Derby County football club has liabilities around the £71m mark. In theory this could be reduced by £24m should MSD force the sell of MM's assets (not sure they can do this without Derby first defaulting on the charge) but mostly that's the ground/training/car park lease and that could have an impact on the club itself should the new landlord have other plans for the assets. Most virtual freeholds have full repairing clauses that friendly landlords (as would have been MM when in charge) don't choose to exercise. What if the new landlord does? 'Hello tenant, you're served notice to reinstate as per the terms of your lease....if you don't you're in default and it's not my problem you can't afford to....' There's another theoretical reduction of circa £5.5m should the unsecured creditors agree a CVA, but Derby don't have the £1.5m cash to buy that out yet so it would have to be 'discounted' (i.e added as a liability in when accounting for the purchase.) So paying £30m for the club (name plus 5 contracts) you'd still have acquired £15.5m of debt, have no working capital and be somewhere shy of 20 players to form a squad. Suppose HMRC wrote off £16m of debt you'd still have only 5 contracts, a name and no stadium but that assumes a whole other level of write-off. Really, who'd offer £30m for that? More likely it's as you often see reported ' I bought X for £1' (technically true but not reporting the tens of millions liability one has also taken possession of)?

And per my comment re the MM / MSD historic association, who'd be surprised were MM himself ultimately to benefit via outside arrangements from MSDs secured credit status?

As students of negotiation or game theory will remind the thing most folks fail to appreciate is absolute power sits not with those who may end up winning rather it sits with those who retain an ability to stop others winning, especially where they themselves have already lost. Those thinking Ashley holds all the aces, he doesn't.

Note my point about the MM / MSD assumption. What better way of protecting ones interests than being top of the secured pile? The two go back to the development of the whole Pride Park complex. MSD were complicit in furthering additional funds to keep Derby going (naturally all secured.) What chance they may well have paid May's wages but wouldn't want that known? Folks assume they aren't in cahoots, but why is that, they loads in common? If they simply wanted their monies back they could easily have forced that ages ago. So yes, both stadium and charge are beyond Q's control which back to the original point may account for a reluctance to deal with MA if these are a known prerequisite as to his demands. Fees may be a convenient red herring.

Best bet for what and whom? Save Derby County? Perhaps, but what else? Folks are making the MASSIVE assumption that there's even a deal to be done with MA. For sure he'll offer terms (I could do that,) but like those I'd demand I reckon these would include getting the ground and MSD's debt cleared via MM's gift, not via any injection of funds made, those being used to settle the issue with HMRC and other creditors so as to take the business out of administration. Of course Q have no power or authority over either just as MM has no legal obligation to help, other than a court could exercise the charge against assets held by MM should no other repayment to MSD materialize. Likewise, folks assume MM and MSD not to be singing from the same hymnsheet. But they were, they were thick as pigs in sh*t in their dealings and the MSD charge might just be another ruse between MM and MD and chums to retain as much as possible for themselves, leaving others to absorb maximum damage. So whilst the rumour is it's the £4m fees to Q that's holding everything up, personally I reckon that's another yarn. The amount Ashley is rumoured to have offered is barely enough to cover HMRC and non-secured creditors. If that includes the stadium without charge there's a deal to be done, if it's for name and scrap only, who's kidding who?

As of yesterday and other than the Wales fixture there were plenty of tickets available for all England's matches (and potential matches.) Not much by way of accommodation, certainly little affordable, but loads of tickets. I like Doha, but wouldn't bother with this disruptive, commercial fiasco.

Andy Appleby? Any relation to the bloke who sold to and acted as Chairman initially for, er, Mel Morris?

Not sure if you're a follower of 'Price of Football' but for years now a very considered and reasoned take from football's favourite accountant (and fan) has been wholly in favour of Ashley's financial acumen, albeit his recognition that runs in opposition to fans irrational and unreasonable demands. Ashley acquired a Newcastle shipping £250k per week. A Newcastle with but a few months to live. A Newcastle with collateral, massive fanbase and huge potential. Didn't take Ashley long to trim outgoings, consolidate the short term (albeit with limited ambition,) and after Spurs deliver the best financial stability in The Premier for year after year. From an accounting perspective he worked miracles at and for Newcastle United. Fans clearly didn't think that meritorious. So before accusing Ashley of looking for a cheap asset striping exploit ask oneself the difference between the Newcastle he purchased and the Derby on offer? Unless there's collateral to underpin the whole shebang Derby is a non-starter and in simple terms that involves Morris paying off MSD and gifting Ashley's buyout the stadium. That's why, all other debt aside, this is Ashley pulling Morris' pants down and asking him, politely, to bend over and grit his teeth. It's nothing to do with getting things on the cheap. It's business. It's personal.

Ok. CK is most likely a fraud, or chancer, or liar, but there is a most delicious scenario that the bloke Derby fans are slating to the hills tonight for not meeting the deadline might, just might, in the next few hours prove he has the ability to take them over then, having noted their diatribe, decided not to bother. That would be a delicious twist worthy of 'Tales Of The Unexpected' or 'Inside No9'. Probably won't happen, but with a Keeganesque fervour; boy, would I love it...boy would I love it.....

Forest's official tweet at 5pm tonight - shithousery of the first water but made me laugh.

Utterly stupid. Killing the game as a spectacle.

If you've ever worked closely with Saudis you'll appreciate there's a raft of difference between what one is owed and that one eventually receives (akin Derby and their creditors......)

Any idea who paid Derby's May wages? Rumour was Rooney but be good to know who and on what basis given Quantuma claimed to have the wherewithal to see Derby through the summer & that didn't happen.