Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County

havanatopia

By havanatopia
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

REDOXO

REDOXO

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

A Derby fans tweeted a reply to me last night, along the lines of….”we are gone”.

Dave. I believe it! I simply can not see a way back unless they find a bidder that simply doesn’t care about money and any consideration of value! 
 

It’s possible something comes out of left field like Morris making on good on debt out of his personal fortune, but there has been nothing to suggest that could happen. 
 

However as I said about 40 pages ago. This is not Aldershot Bury or Wimbledon. The West Nottinghamshire border league division six is not feasible with the amount of traveling support. Any Phoenix club will have to start much further up the pyramid simply because of the logistics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

A Derby fans tweeted a reply to me last night, along the lines of….”we are gone”.

Gone to League 1 or 'proper' gone?

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

Bones to pick out. Potential purchasers that remain interested. Is that an oxymoron? If you are not interested you can’t be a potential purchaser. 

It is our duty to secure an appropriate valuation….Not sure what this even means. The time for valuation is long gone or it could be argued is ongoing, however it is there duty to secure the best offer!….The rest of the sentence goes onto mention a bid suitable to present to the EFL, IMPLYING their isn’t one!

At this point I cant be bothered to even comment further on that “statement”. However I would really like to know what the Derby fan who vociferously told me on this very forum that it was all just Couhig and Gibson stopping everything, it is all in place once they get out of the way, and I could believe what I liked about Quantuma, Morris and DCFC thinks now. At least some of this utter shit show is down to the gullibility and blind loyalty toward these persons and groups by supporters who managed to attain a state of collective idiocy! 

"Potential purchasers that remain interested" is possibly a tautology rather than an oxymoron. An oxymoron is a statement that contradicts itself. The classic example is "Microsoft Works". A tautology is where you unnecessarily say the same thing twice in a different manner.

"It is our duty to secure an appropriate valuation". They are slightly misusing the word 'valuation'. Their duty is to  get the best deal for the creditors. Implicit in that duty is a requirement that they realise the sale of the club for the most money they can get. The words 'an appropriate valuation' are what they have chosen to replace the more vulgar truth that is 'the most money we can gouge out of a gullible bidder for this absolute car crash of a company'. 

As to your third paragraph. Yeh, seems like it maybe wasn't just evil old Steve Gibson preventing the glorious resurrection of Wayne Rooney's Derby County FC. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
REDOXO

REDOXO

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Gone to League 1 or 'proper' gone?

"Potential purchasers that remain interested" is possibly a tautology rather than an oxymoron. An oxymoron is a statement that contradicts itself. The classic example is "Microsoft Works". A tautology is where you unnecessarily say the same thing twice in a different manner.

"It is our duty to secure an appropriate valuation". They are slightly misusing the word 'valuation'. Their duty is to  get the best deal for the creditors. Implicit in that duty is a requirement that they realise the sale of the club for the most money they can get. The words 'an appropriate valuation' are what they have chosen to replace the more vulgar truth that is 'the most money we can gouge out of a gullible bidder for this absolute car crash of a company'. 

As to your third paragraph. Yeh, seems like it maybe wasn't just evil old Steve Gibson preventing the glorious resurrection of Wayne Rooney's Derby County FC. 

Tautology that’ll work. The fact is it’s borderline senseless in a serious statement. 
 

As I said. It is there duty to get the best offer (in your words the best deal for the creditors which I’m sure is accurate) not the best valuation. 
 

This stuff is just indicative of how unprofessional they are.  
 

Yes the third paragraph is of course my point. This company appears so far out of their league it’s laughable. Unfortunately Derby will be out of their league too before very long because of it!
 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bristol Rob

Bristol Rob

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Old Ashtonian said:

Could Mel Morris just be waiting for Derby to go bang so he can pick up the club name cheaply and start over again?  He already has the stadium. The level of support should guarantee a decent tier to begin at.

Would the fans accept him back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Old Ashtonian said:

Could Mel Morris just be waiting for Derby to go bang so he can pick up the club name cheaply and start over again?  He already has the stadium. The level of support should guarantee a decent tier to begin at.

There are some pretty complex rules and laws regarding the directors of insolvent companies creating so called 'phoenix' companies that have the same name as the dead company. It's basically not allowed, and it also doesn't really get around the paying of debts to creditors, including debts to HMRC.

Basically he might be able to do that, but it would be little better than continuing to fund Derby this season.

If he got any of this wrong then he could wind up being found to have personally breached the Insolvency Act, and that opens him up to potential imprisonment. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PHILINFRANCE

PHILINFRANCE

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Old Ashtonian said:

Could Mel Morris just be waiting for Derby to go bang so he can pick up the club name cheaply and start over again?  He already has the stadium. The level of support should guarantee a decent tier to begin at.

 

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

There are some pretty complex rules and laws regarding the directors of insolvent companies creating so called 'phoenix' companies that have the same name as the dead company. It's basically not allowed, and it also doesn't really get around the paying of debts to creditors, including debts to HMRC.

Basically he might be able to do that, but it would be little better than continuing to fund Derby this season.

If he got any of this wrong then he could wind up being found to have personally breached the Insolvency Act, and that opens him up to potential imprisonment. 

I hesitate to raise a further point given the EFL’s history, but, notwithstanding the legal problems mentioned, would he really be considered a ‘fit’ person to own a football club?

  • Like 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I hesitate to raise a further point given the EFL’s history, but, notwithstanding the legal problems mentioned, would he really be considered a ‘fit’ person to own a football club?

Unlikely given he's recently been involved with a football club that's gone insolvent.

Good point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

 

I hesitate to raise a further point given the EFL’s history, but, notwithstanding the legal problems mentioned, would he really be considered a ‘fit’ person to own a football club?

 

45 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Unlikely given he's recently been involved with a football club that's gone insolvent.

Good point. 

We'd have thought not, but one of the responses to Derby fans questions to the EFL suggests that the magic number maybe two.

As in two Football Related Insolvencies, which is a fairly depressing thought. Maybe he couldn't repurchase Derby, not that it's clear but maybe he could hit another club!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

We'd have thought not, but one of the responses to Derby fans questions to the EFL suggests that the magic number maybe two.

As in two Football Related Insolvencies, which is a fairly depressing thought. Maybe he couldn't repurchase Derby, not that it's clear but maybe he could hit another club!

I checked the regs. Yeh it's two. ******* hell EFL. Even the Prem say one is too many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted

Just said on 5 Live that a club cannot start successive seasons in administration so Derby could in theory start next season still in admin and not get a further points deduction. This is allegedly what the EFL advised them.

They would still need to raise money to fund the club for another season of course but it does seem absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, chinapig said:

Just said on 5 Live that a club cannot start successive seasons in administration so Derby could in theory start next season still in admin and not get a further points deduction. This is allegedly what the EFL advised them.

They would still need to raise money to fund the club for another season of course but it does seem absurd.

I was under the impression that meant they had to come out of admin before next season…but someone else said that’s not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cider11

cider11

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I was under the impression that meant they had to come out of admin before next season…but someone else said that’s not the case.

 

35 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I thought the same but it seems not.

I think it’s because they didn’t start this season in admin, only went in part way through. So can start the next season in admin but couldn’t start 23/24 still in admin.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
East Londoner

East Londoner

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, cider11 said:

 

I think it’s because they didn’t start this season in admin, only went in part way through. So can start the next season in admin but couldn’t start 23/24 still in admin.

Although isn’t that kind of irrelevant as they’d still need funding and currently have no real assets with their better players out of contract in the summer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted

A juicy hint in today's Price of Football podcast from Kieran Maguire.

We may find out more if and when the lawyers agree but he said he had spoken to somebody who had recently been made redundant and it seems some senior people at the club and at the Administrators have been guilty of some scandalous (his word) behaviour.

Watch this space.

 

  • Like 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

A juicy hint in today's Price of Football podcast from Kieran Maguire.

We may find out more if and when the lawyers agree but he said he had spoken to somebody who had recently been made redundant and it seems some senior people at the club and at the Administrators have been guilty of some scandalous (his word) behaviour.

Watch this space.

Oh you absolute tease.

I'd always be cautious of the words of potentially disgruntled ex-employees. Having said that I'd also expect there to be at least a grain of truth in something said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

Oh you absolute tease.

I'd always be cautious of the words of potentially disgruntled ex-employees. Having said that I'd also expect there to be at least a grain of truth in something said.

I don't think Maguire would mention it if he didn't think it had some merit. He did say he would say more at a later date so it is doubtless with m'learned friends. We shall see 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Monkeh

Monkeh

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, chinapig said:

I don't think Maguire would mention it if he didn't think it had some merit. He did say he would say more at a later date so it is doubtless with m'learned friends. We shall see 

Everything he's said has happened

Link to comment
Share on other sites
REDOXO

REDOXO

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Yes, but let's not forget he is part of the conspiracy against poor innocent little Derby, alongside the EFL and Steve Gibson. And @Mr Popodopolous.?

 

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

I don't think Maguire would mention it if he didn't think it had some merit. He did say he would say more at a later date so it is doubtless with m'learned friends. We shall see 

He did actually say it was being looked at by lawyers. However I have never seen Gibson and @Mr Popodopolousin the same room, FACT!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, chinapig said:

I don't think Maguire would mention it if he didn't think it had some merit. He did say he would say more at a later date so it is doubtless with m'learned friends. We shall see 

Quite.

Listened over lunch. Have to say the point he made on HMRC debt was a good one. Derby owe £27m, the next highest debt to HMRC in the Championship was said to be QPR, who reportedly owe £2.2m (and he gives a couple of other examples in Luton and Millwall owing less than £1m). So yeh, HMRC are quite rightly asking questions as to why 23 other clubs are perfectly capable of paying (most of) their HMRC debts, including using the loans from the Prem to do so, and yet somehow Derby County couldn't. 

Edited by ExiledAjax
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CHIPLEY RED

CHIPLEY RED

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Quite.

Listened over lunch. Have to say the point he made on HMRC debt was a good one. Derby owe £27m, the next highest debt to HMRC in the Championship was said to be QPR, who reportedly owe £2.2m (and he gives a couple of other examples in Luton and Millwall owing less than £1m). So yeh, HMRC are quite rightly asking questions as to why 23 other clubs are perfectly capable of paying (most of) their HMRC debts, including using the loans from the Prem to do so, and yet somehow Derby County couldn't. 

This is what I hate. Derby owe £27m in tax thats £27m that you and me have to pay.

The administrators should be asked some serious questions about what they are doing for their money. A friend and also Derby fan tells me that any potential buyer had to pay a £5m non refundable deposit just to register an interest and the fans think thats one reason why there are no interested parties. He also thinks the administrator is delaying in case Derby beat the drop and are worth more as a championship club.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PHILINFRANCE

PHILINFRANCE

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, CHIPLEY RED said:

The administrators should be asked some serious questions about what they are doing for their money. A friend and also Derby fan tells me that any potential buyer had to pay a £5m non refundable deposit just to register an interest and the fans think thats one reason why there are no interested parties. 

So, Quantuma not as incompetent as is being claimed.

Just think, twenty potential buyers all paying a non-refundable deposit of £5M, that makes £100M, less Quantuma’s fee, leaves a net £50M.

Problem solved, Well Done Quantuma.

Or perhaps your Derby friend is mistaken ?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CHIPLEY RED

CHIPLEY RED

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

So, Quantuma not as incompetent as is being claimed.

Just think, twenty potential buyers all paying a non-refundable deposit of £5M, that makes £100M, less Quantuma’s fee, leaves a net £50M.

Problem solved, Well Done Quantuma.

Or perhaps your Derby friend is mistaken ?.

But still no buyer.

How many potential buyers do you think would give £5m just to register an interest. This isn't Chelsea where £5m is a drop in the ocean this is Derby who don't even own their own ground.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, CHIPLEY RED said:

But still no buyer.

How many potential buyers do you think would give £5m just to register an interest. This isn't Chelsea where £5m is a drop in the ocean this is Derby who don't even own their own ground.

I've been involved in admin sales in the past, and honestly have not heard of or witnessed a requirement to pay a non-refundable deposit up front just to register interest. Could it be that your friend has confused a pledge to fund Derby for this season - which would have likely been for about that amount - with a 'deposit'? There are reports of 3 formal bids. If so that is £15m into the kitty - and yet Derby still had trouble proving funds for the season, and eventually had to sell Jozwiak just a week ago to cover costs. It just doesn't quite make sense for them to do all that if they have £15m in deposits sitting in their account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, CHIPLEY RED said:

But still no buyer.

How many potential buyers do you think would give £5m just to register an interest. This isn't Chelsea where £5m is a drop in the ocean this is Derby who don't even own their own ground.

Shame an owner cannot owe 2 clubs, otherwise they could offer prospective buyers a BOGOF - buy Chelsea and get Derby thrown in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CHIPLEY RED

CHIPLEY RED

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, downendcity said:

Shame an owner cannot owe 2 clubs, otherwise they could offer prospective buyers a BOGOF - buy Chelsea and get Derby thrown in.

That would interest Mike Ashley - be like being in Sports Direct

Edited by CHIPLEY RED
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, CHIPLEY RED said:

This is what I hate. Derby owe £27m in tax thats £27m that you and me have to pay.

The administrators should be asked some serious questions about what they are doing for their money. A friend and also Derby fan tells me that any potential buyer had to pay a £5m non refundable deposit just to register an interest and the fans think thats one reason why there are no interested parties. He also thinks the administrator is delaying in case Derby beat the drop and are worth more as a championship club.

 

16 hours ago, CHIPLEY RED said:

But still no buyer.

How many potential buyers do you think would give £5m just to register an interest. This isn't Chelsea where £5m is a drop in the ocean this is Derby who don't even own their own ground.

 

16 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I've been involved in admin sales in the past, and honestly have not heard of or witnessed a requirement to pay a non-refundable deposit up front just to register interest. Could it be that your friend has confused a pledge to fund Derby for this season - which would have likely been for about that amount - with a 'deposit'? There are reports of 3 formal bids. If so that is £15m into the kitty - and yet Derby still had trouble proving funds for the season, and eventually had to sell Jozwiak just a week ago to cover costs. It just doesn't quite make sense for them to do all that if they have £15m in deposits sitting in their account.

This was a genuine requirement I believe, unsure it is mistaken- this would presumably have been their solution to the cash flow issues and a way of retaining players or as many as possible, to give the best possible chance of selling as a Championship club.

Whether anyone would go for it is a different matter but fairly sure it was a requirement from memory- I say a requirement, a hope by Quantuma more likely. As a way of proving seriousness and worth as a buyer was also mooted.,

  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PHILINFRANCE

PHILINFRANCE

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

 

This was a genuine requirement I believe, unsure it is mistaken- this would presumably have been their solution to the cash flow issues and a way of retaining players or as many as possible, to give the best possible chance of selling as a Championship club.

Whether anyone would go for it is a different matter but fairly sure it was a requirement from memory- I say a requirement, a hope by Quantuma more likely. As a way of proving seriousness and worth as a buyer was also mooted.,

So, just to make sure I have understood this correctly.

Consortium A is tentatively interested and is requested to pay £5M up front, an amount which is non-refundable, just to register their interest and receive access to sufficient documentation to undertake due diligence.

Upon examination, they discover it is the can of worms many suspect it is and withdraw their interest.

Quantuma say, no problem, thanks for your time, but you are not getting your £5M back. 

Goodbye.

Either I have completely misunderstood this, which is very possible, or the whole debacle is even more outrageous and farcical that I imagined. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
REDOXO

REDOXO

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

 

This was a genuine requirement I believe, unsure it is mistaken- this would presumably have been their solution to the cash flow issues and a way of retaining players or as many as possible, to give the best possible chance of selling as a Championship club.

Whether anyone would go for it is a different matter but fairly sure it was a requirement from memory- I say a requirement, a hope by Quantuma more likely. As a way of proving seriousness and worth as a buyer was also mooted.,

If that is correct it’s staggering. As implied up the thread, if Derby were Chelsea or any other of the top 6/10 in the country then maybe. However this club has 15x more HMRC debt than the next club in the division. 
 

If accurate it’s a massive miss calculation by everyone concerned. No wonder bidders have been coy. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This was a genuine requirement I believe, unsure it is mistaken- this would presumably have been their solution to the cash flow issues and a way of retaining players or as many as possible, to give the best possible chance of selling as a Championship club.

Whether anyone would go for it is a different matter but fairly sure it was a requirement from memory- I say a requirement, a hope by Quantuma more likely. As a way of proving seriousness and worth as a buyer was also mooted.,

In ten years of working as a lawyer in business sales and purchases, including a few insolvency transactions, I have never seen nor heard of any seller requiring a 'non-refundable deposit' purely for the privilege of 'registering interest'. If Q are demanding what is in effect a 8.3% (assuming they are hoping for circa. £60m in total) deposit, purely for 'registering interest' then it is scandalous as Maguire alludes to.

Proof of funds - sure, all the time.

Structured payment - whereby a small % may be paid up front, with further consideration paid as an 'earn out' - sure, again all the time. This is quite different to here though as this would be only with the buyer, and they'd be locked in at that point.

Deposits made into escrow or solicitor's accounts, made at a point when heads of terms are signed and exclusivity is granted - very occasionally - but only where there is serious doubt over the veracity of the buyer.

Honestly every single one of my clients would be insulted to be asked to stump up 8.3% of the proposed purchase price before they could even start doing DD or negotiating in earnest.

It may well be true, but if so then I will be shocked.

 

Edited by ExiledAjax
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PHILINFRANCE

PHILINFRANCE

Posted
Posted

I was too late to edit my previous post, but notwithstanding what appears, from a distance, to be a thoroughly incompetent and unprofessional handling of Derby’s Administration, my money is still on Chipley’s mate being wrong about this £5M non-refundable deposit.

To my mind, such a request would be inconceivable and, furthermore, extremely unlikely to be taken up by any seriously interested party.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PHILINFRANCE

PHILINFRANCE

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

In ten years of working as a lawyer in business sales and purchases, including a few insolvency transactions, I have never seen nor heard of any seller requiring a 'non-refundable deposit' purely for the privilege of 'registering interest'. If Q are demanding what is in effect a 8.3% (assuming they are hoping for circa. £60m in total) deposit, purely for 'registering interest' then it is scandalous as Maguire alludes.

Honestly every single one of my clients would be insulted to be asked to stump up 8.3% of the proposed purchase price before they could even start doing DD or negotiating in earnest.

It may well be true, but if so then I will be shocked.

 

Two points/questions relating to your post.

1. The aspect that surprises me, so much so that I am convinced there is no truth in the claim, is that the deposit is to be non-refundable! An absolutely preposterous and ludicrous suggestion in my opinion.

2. If I am wrong about 1. (above), is this the aspect that Maguire finds scandalous?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Two points/questions relating to your post.

1. The aspect that surprises me, so much so that I am convinced there is no truth in the claim, is that the deposit is to be non-refundable! An absolutely preposterous and ludicrous suggestion in my opinion.

I am struggling to think of any transaction that I have ever been involved with that required any kind of deposit. Proof of funds is always needed by a seller, but even that can be fairly loose if you're confident that the buyer is legitimate. In Derby's case, I don't think any of Ashley, the Binnies, Appleby or even Kirchner would be so suspicious as to require a £5m deposit. Yes some of them are a bit funny, but everyone knows they've got the money. 

It get us to the point we've all made - that if it's not proof of funds that's the issue, then any deposit required is surely an obvious cash grab. 

I am also conscious that this is the kind of story that many Derby fans would simply love to be true. Hearing that Q are demanding £5m for a 'registration of interest', and then presuming that multiple parties have paid that, well that very much validates that Derby are a) attractive, b) a big deal, c) not going insolvent, and d) being looked at by rich and serious people. It would catch on and be validated by assumption and head-nodding.

2. If I am wrong about 1. (above), is this the aspect that Maguire finds scandalous?

It could very well be one of those aspects yes.

My thoughts above. I'm very skeptical to say the least. I respect @Mr Popodopolous and our friends from Derby, but if this proves true then it will be a first for me.

@PHILINFRANCE EDIT: Ok thinking about it I do recall one transaction that had a deposit. But that was a company taking investment from a foreign investor. They had reasons to believe that investor might back out, and so requested a deposit. It was something like 1% of the final price. I honestly cannot recall if it was refundable or not, it was certainly to be offset against the final price.

I maintain that £5m would be truly exceptional, especially if truly 'non-refundable'.

Edited by ExiledAjax
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PHILINFRANCE

PHILINFRANCE

Posted
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

My thoughts above. I'm very skeptical to say the least. I respect @Mr Popodopolous and our friends from Derby, but if this proves true then it will be a first for me.

@PHILINFRANCE EDIT: Ok thinking about it I do recall one transaction that had a deposit. But that was a company taking investment from a foreign investor. They had reasons to believe that investor might back out, and so requested a deposit. It was something like 1% of the final price. I honestly cannot recall if it was refundable or not, it was certainly to be offset against the final price.

I maintain that £5m would be truly exceptional, especially if truly 'non-refundable'.

It is the non-refundable aspect where, for me, the suggestion lacks credibility. 

I can understand, without in any way condoning it, that Quantuma would like to get some extra cash in urgently, so the suggestion that prospective bidders might have to pay a deposit is feasible.

I am not convinced, however. that this would solve Derby's cash flow problem, as I should have thought any deposits would be placed in an Escrow account - similar to a CARPA account over here - and, as the whole point of an Escrow account is to protect the funds, they would not even be available until the transacton was complete.

I would just love it, a la Kevin Keegan, if this is the scandalous behaviour to which Kevin Maguire refers; Quantuma requesting that non-refundable deposits be placed in Derby's/Quantuma's own account, the account of a football club that might be liquidated within months.

 

 

Edited by PHILINFRANCE
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

My thoughts above. I'm very skeptical to say the least. I respect @Mr Popodopolous and our friends from Derby, but if this proves true then it will be a first for me.

@PHILINFRANCE EDIT: Ok thinking about it I do recall one transaction that had a deposit. But that was a company taking investment from a foreign investor. They had reasons to believe that investor might back out, and so requested a deposit. It was something like 1% of the final price. I honestly cannot recall if it was refundable or not, it was certainly to be offset against the final price.

I maintain that £5m would be truly exceptional, especially if truly 'non-refundable'.

I'll attempt to clarify my point. It was an expectation a forlorn hope by Quantuma but only of the Preferred bidder. Will respond in more depth later or tomorrow.

As I understand it though, they were hoping/expecting it might happen or claiming it anyway- whether they believed in it a very different matter.

It is and I bow to your experience here, unorthodox without any doubt but Quantuma are unorthodox, desperate situation too- remember Andronikou at Portsmouth tried many things, not necessarily in the handbook. He's a common denominator here a decade on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CHIPLEY RED

CHIPLEY RED

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

So, just to make sure I have understood this correctly.

Consortium A is tentatively interested and is requested to pay £5M up front, an amount which is non-refundable, just to register their interest and receive access to sufficient documentation to undertake due diligence.

Upon examination, they discover it is the can of worms many suspect it is and withdraw their interest.

Quantuma say, no problem, thanks for your time, but you are not getting your £5M back. 

Goodbye.

Either I have completely misunderstood this, which is very possible, or the whole debacle is even more outrageous and farcical that I imagined. 

What you haver described is how my Derby friend and his fellow supporters see it. Strange because even is you are interested only 1 buyer can buy the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hxj

Hxj

Posted
Posted

It is clear that the Administrators vastly oversold their ability to sell the club/assets and have even more appallingly under delivered.

There is a reason that none of the well known accountants and insolvency firms were interested in taking on the high profile media aware appointment - reputational risk.  That is coming to Quantuma.

The odd rumour I hear is that the whole DCFC organisation is in meltdown.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

do you have a link, Dave?

Thanks

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjxj5zdvcr2AhVJi1wKHdDXAHgQFnoECCQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpodcasts.apple.com%2Fgb%2Fpodcast%2Fthe-price-of-football%2Fid1482886394&usg=AOvVaw1USb9WScQXkDImwsVGm6wH

 

edit: just google “price of football podcast” or going into your podcast app and search.

Edited by Davefevs
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
REDOXO

REDOXO

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjxj5zdvcr2AhVJi1wKHdDXAHgQFnoECCQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpodcasts.apple.com%2Fgb%2Fpodcast%2Fthe-price-of-football%2Fid1482886394&usg=AOvVaw1USb9WScQXkDImwsVGm6wH

 

edit: just google “price of football podcast” or going into your podcast app and search.

Is there another? I can only get Sundays when he said about having info inside derby being checked by lawyers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)

Seen elsewhere, veracity who knows.

Quote

Article in the Athletic saying that they owe £2.5m to Lech Poznan for Jozwiak. They had asked Lech Poznan if they could defer the next transfer instalment (which was due in February), to which they said no; they have not heard from Derby/Quantuma since (despite numerous attempts to chase them for the money they are owed) and only found out about Jozwiak signing for Charlotte FC when the player himself told them.

I mean yeah it was due- my question is can't the EFL as was being mentioned in January, freeze central awards for distribution if required to football creditors- would Poznan not be a football creditor?

That's fairly shocking though, hearing it off the player after radio silence!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://theathletic.com/news/derby-owe-lech-poznan-25m-for-jozwiak-despite-players-move-to-mls-side-charlotte-fc/2AIJyv1w9nHy/

Sounds like it'd have to be resolved with FIFA, that's a typo in the URL- £2.5m not £25m.

So the conspiracy against sporting integrity's Derby County has now gone international??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1960maaan

1960maaan

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://theathletic.com/news/derby-owe-lech-poznan-25m-for-jozwiak-despite-players-move-to-mls-side-charlotte-fc/2AIJyv1w9nHy/

Sounds like it'd have to be resolved with FIFA, that's a typo in the URL- £2.5m not £25m.

Now I hope you can explain something hereMr P.

If I sell something I don't own, it's fraud. There would be consequences , potential charges etc. 
The Admin have sanctioned the sell, knowing that they don't own the player. Would they be culpable ? Could it be yet another charge against the club ? It seems like the Administrators are as bad as Derby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Now I hope you can explain something hereMr P.

If I sell something I don't own, it's fraud. There would be consequences , potential charges etc. 
The Admin have sanctioned the sell, knowing that they don't own the player. Would they be culpable ? Could it be yet another charge against the club ? It seems like the Administrators are as bad as Derby.

They own the player's contract, they just haven't paid for it yet. Similar to how one 'owns' a mortgaged house, but pays the bank instalments to pay for it. You can sell that house, but you've still got to satisfy that debt to the bank. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1960maaan

1960maaan

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

They own the player's contract, they just haven't paid for it yet. Similar to how one 'owns' a mortgaged house, but pays the bank instalments to pay for it. You can sell that house, but you've still got to satisfy that debt to the bank. 

Just feels like someone is playing a fast one. Admins get money in from the sale, but instead of paying off the money owed on the player being sold, it will (could) just go on running costs ( read Admin charges) and just let Lech Poznan fight over the money when the dust settles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, 1960maaan said:

Just feels like someone is playing a fast one. Admins get money in from the sale, but instead of paying off the money owed on the player being sold, it will (could) just go on running costs ( read Admin charges) and just let Lech Poznan fight over the money when the dust settles.

Yes, absolutely someone is pulling a fast one. But that doesn't mean Derby/Quantuma didn't have the legal right to sell the contract. It means that a) they should pay Lech Poznan, or b) as @Davefevs says, FIFA should have blocked the sale. Lech Poznan have been done over by the protection Derby have from being in administration. 

It is proper naughty, but possibly not 'illegal'.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, East Londoner said:

Unless I’m missing something here Derby owe more for the player than they’ve got in a transfer fee. They must be desperate 

Cash to see them through the season….won’t be good for FFP, will be a “transfer loss” in the accounts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...