Would Derby have been in this amount of Debt if the EFL had punished them 2 or 3 years ago?
They sold the ground in 2018 and Mel still values it at £81m in the accounts and wants a bargain £22m now. That seems a little steep for a ground on an industrial estate in Derby.
The EFL actually lost their case against Derby over the selling and the valuation of the ground and eventually caught the cheats on the way they had decided players value in the accounts. Yes they are slow and lack the regulations, but they did come up with a novel con with this one.
We need something done about clubs being separated from their grounds, but it is a hard one. Maybe something along the lines of having to register to join the EFL by allowing them to hold the title of the land occupied by the Club that can only be sold/developed with their approval.
It’s not critical time wasted though is it? We all know the deadlines mean next to nothing.
The deadline only applied to HIS attempted purchase of the club. Mike Ashley can now have a go & will be given a 3 month deadline. When his attempt fails after more deadlines have been passed then Southall can have a go. By that time we will be approaching xmas......
The lowest offer that has been put forward to date.
If so I suspect it is also the most realistic. The administrators should never have gone exclusive with Kirchener when the whole world could see he didn't have the funds and was a chancer.
Apologies if this has been stated already, I have not seen it - will Derby, or is there any chance of Derby having a points deduction next season?
It's possible, but not certain. There's no reason they'd start the season with another points deduction, but there's one that kicks in if they are eventually bought by someone who pays less than a certain proportion of the debts (25%, if I remember right). As things stand, their fans would love to have that problem, compared to the likely alternative which is a season of no football and then starting again with a club called something like AFC Derby, several divisions below the EFL.
It seems widely acknowledged that he never had the funds to pull this off, although he is of course sticking to the narrative that this was an admin issue.
Whilst there are always professional tyre-kickers sniffing round football clubs trying to get their name in the press, one would assume to get preferred bidder status he has spent a fair bit of money in legal fees etc and any positive press he/his businesses might have received by being associated with Derby has now evaporated and he ends up looking a bit of a chancer.
I suppose my question is what did he have to gain from this whole enterprise?
It seems widely acknowledged that he never had the funds to pull this off, although he is of course sticking to the narrative that this was an admin issue.
Whilst there are always professional tyre-kickers sniffing round football clubs trying to get their name in the press, one would assume to get preferred bidder status he has spent a fair bit of money in legal fees etc and any positive press he/his businesses might have received by being associated with Derby has now evaporated and he ends up looking a bit of a chancer.
I suppose my question is what did he have to gain from this whole enterprise?
Just a wild theory, but could he have been used by another potential bidder to run the clock down to a point when a lower offer might seem attractive to the administrators which would have previously been dismissed?
It seems widely acknowledged that he never had the funds to pull this off, although he is of course sticking to the narrative that this was an admin issue.
Whilst there are always professional tyre-kickers sniffing round football clubs trying to get their name in the press, one would assume to get preferred bidder status he has spent a fair bit of money in legal fees etc and any positive press he/his businesses might have received by being associated with Derby has now evaporated and he ends up looking a bit of a chancer.
I suppose my question is what did he have to gain from this whole enterprise?
Just a wild theory, but could he have been used by another potential bidder to run the clock down to a point when a lower offer might seem attractive to the administrators which would have previously been dismissed?
Theoretically I suppose it's possible but not sure what he has to gain from such a manoeuvre or why he'd go along with it.
It seems widely acknowledged that he never had the funds to pull this off, although he is of course sticking to the narrative that this was an admin issue.
Whilst there are always professional tyre-kickers sniffing round football clubs trying to get their name in the press, one would assume to get preferred bidder status he has spent a fair bit of money in legal fees etc and any positive press he/his businesses might have received by being associated with Derby has now evaporated and he ends up looking a bit of a chancer.
I suppose my question is what did he have to gain from this whole enterprise?
Prestige ?? Inflated ego ?? Now has his name "out there" when another opportunity arises ??
It’s not critical time wasted though is it? We all know the deadlines mean next to nothing.
The deadline only applied to HIS attempted purchase of the club. Mike Ashley can now have a go & will be given a 3 month deadline. When his attempt fails after more deadlines have been passed then Southall can have a go. By that time we will be approaching xmas......
If Mike Ashley agrees a price and gets preferred bidder status then he will get them. He's not a bluffer like some of these guys. His offer is likely to be super low though, so once it goes through they'll almost certainly get another points deduction.
I think he's one of those guys with a bit of money by most standards but nothing by football standards who loves the publicity and attention and thinks he's such a great wheeler dealer he'll make it work or another investor can be persuaded to stump up the real cash.
There was meant to be a £5m nonrefundable deposit but CK avoided paying that. That should have been warning enough.
Fake it until you make it is the phrase these people live by. He's behind on wages etc for other businesses he owns.
The Admins have set a minimum price that means DCFC can come out of admin without any more points deductions and the other authorities are content.
That figure was £21m ish. It may have risen as the administrators costs have risen.
That's why the Admins don't want to deal with Ashley. He has offered much less, they won't get paid as much and the club gets other punishment. Ashley doesn't care.
And any new owner has to also pay £20m for pride Park or do a rental deal AND show they can fund a money losing club for two seasons.
Ashley can do all that, if the price is right. If not he just walks away.
Meanwhile the EFL are panicking that Derby may not fulfil their fixtures because they let the administrators and Kirchner drag this on and on, extending their deadline time and time again.
Kirchner had failed to buy Preston He ran away from a Derby deal last year He is 34 years old with barely any social media history/internet history until this recent deal He has failed to pay the Dallas Mavericks $800k He hasn't made payroll for his own company on time for 7 months
Genuinely the administrators are incompetent Why has Kirchner actually bothered These people are sociopaths.
The Football League says it is "extremely frustrated" at being blocked from speaking to potential buyers of stricken League One club Derby County.
After Chris Kirchner's withdrawal on Monday, the EFL said it intended to step up its involvement in the process.
It was expected EFL chief executive Trevor Birch would be kept across efforts to sell the club.
With fixtures due out on Thursday, BBC Sport understands administrators Quantuma remain confident of a sale and they are planning to take on more external funding to cover June's wages.
But key elements of their work remain out of the EFL's reach, according to Birch, as he outlined in a letter to the Rams Trust Fans Group, released on Saturday.
"The administrators have informed us that the confidentiality arrangements agreed with bidders, plus obligations owed by the administrators to individuals under the UK's General Data Protection Regulations, means they are unable to confirm the identity of any bidder without the express consent from the relevant bidder," said Birch.
"In order to explain our position, we have asked for calls with the solicitors acting for those bidders who have refused consent. These calls have not yet taken place.
"As you can imagine this is extremely frustrating for us. Firstly, with considerable experience in this area we believe we can help review any proposed exit plans to identify any issues as early as possible so we can then work with them to try to find any potential solutions.
"Secondly, we will have significant work to do on verification of compliance with the Owners' and Directors' Test, as well as an assessment of the ultimate source and sufficiency of funding. This clearly cannot start until we have the necessary information."
Quantuma have relied on external funding through the American financiers MSD Holdings since they were appointed in September. However, Birch points out this approach carries risk.
"The administrators have funded the ongoing trading losses with further advances from an external funder which has security on the stadium," he added.
"This of course has created a liability that the administrators need a prospective purchaser to repay as part of the sale consideration. This debt has obviously grown with every passing month of administration trading."
Derby would be allowed to start the 2022-23 League One season in administration. However, Quantuma will have to show how they intend to fund the club at break-even level throughout the campaign.
Wayne Rooney's squad is due to begin pre-season training on 27 June, although the manager's position has yet to be clarified and the club only have five contracted senior players beyond the end of this month.
Interesting comments from the EFL......but all of their own making I fear. It's their rules they are playing to so if they think there is little transparency then change the rules to say that the EFL should be party to any discussions regarding changes to club ownership. I realise the "members" have to vote & agree to any changes to the rules but it would be a start to get proposals out there.
Also it seems ongoing funding (wages etc) is basically being paid for by loans which are secured on the ground.And interest is being added to this debt which has to be paid off by the incoming owner. So basically any new owner is currently paying for the "club" even though they don't currently own it. Bonkers. Bit like buying a house & having to pay the vendors mortgage from the time you put your offer in to the time of completion.
I predict Derby will still be in Administration when the season starts and "assurances" will be given that there will be sufficient funding for them to complete the season - because the loan company will be happy to keep funding their club as they will get paid at some point & EFL dont have the rules to stop it.
Interesting comments from the EFL......but all of their own making I fear. It's their rules they are playing to so if they think there is little transparency then change the rules to say that the EFL should be party to any discussions regarding changes to club ownership. I realise the "members" have to vote & agree to any changes to the rules but it would be a start to get proposals out there.
Also it seems ongoing funding (wages etc) is basically being paid for by loans which are secured on the ground.And interest is being added to this debt which has to be paid off by the incoming owner. So basically any new owner is currently paying for the "club" even though they don't currently own it. Bonkers. Bit like buying a house & having to pay the vendors mortgage from the time you put your offer in to the time of completion.
I predict Derby will still be in Administration when the season starts and "assurances" will be given that there will be sufficient funding for them to complete the season - because the loan company will be happy to keep funding their club as they will get paid at some point & EFL dont have the rules to stop it.
I am not sure the loans can be secured to the ground because they don’t own it. Do the Club own more than five players and a manager?
Comments
The EFL actually lost their case against Derby over the selling and the valuation of the ground and eventually caught the cheats on the way they had decided players value in the accounts. Yes they are slow and lack the regulations, but they did come up with a novel con with this one.
We need something done about clubs being separated from their grounds, but it is a hard one. Maybe something along the lines of having to register to join the EFL by allowing them to hold the title of the land occupied by the Club that can only be sold/developed with their approval.
Kirchner withdraws
Whilst there are always professional tyre-kickers sniffing round football clubs trying to get their name in the press, one would assume to get preferred bidder status he has spent a fair bit of money in legal fees etc and any positive press he/his businesses might have received by being associated with Derby has now evaporated and he ends up looking a bit of a chancer.
I suppose my question is what did he have to gain from this whole enterprise?
There was meant to be a £5m nonrefundable deposit but CK avoided paying that. That should have been warning enough.
Fake it until you make it is the phrase these people live by. He's behind on wages etc for other businesses he owns.
The Admins have set a minimum price that means DCFC can come out of admin without any more points deductions and the other authorities are content.
That figure was £21m ish. It may have risen as the administrators costs have risen.
That's why the Admins don't want to deal with Ashley. He has offered much less, they won't get paid as much and the club gets other punishment. Ashley doesn't care.
And any new owner has to also pay £20m for pride Park or do a rental deal AND show they can fund a money losing club for two seasons.
Ashley can do all that, if the price is right. If not he just walks away.
Meanwhile the EFL are panicking that Derby may not fulfil their fixtures because they let the administrators and Kirchner drag this on and on, extending their deadline time and time again.
He ran away from a Derby deal last year
He is 34 years old with barely any social media history/internet history until this recent deal
He has failed to pay the Dallas Mavericks $800k
He hasn't made payroll for his own company on time for 7 months
Genuinely the administrators are incompetent
Why has Kirchner actually bothered
These people are sociopaths.
The Football League says it is "extremely frustrated" at being blocked from speaking to potential buyers of stricken League One club Derby County.
After Chris Kirchner's withdrawal on Monday, the EFL said it intended to step up its involvement in the process.
It was expected EFL chief executive Trevor Birch would be kept across efforts to sell the club.
With fixtures due out on Thursday, BBC Sport understands administrators Quantuma remain confident of a sale and they are planning to take on more external funding to cover June's wages.
But key elements of their work remain out of the EFL's reach, according to Birch, as he outlined in a letter to the Rams Trust Fans Group, released on Saturday.
"The administrators have informed us that the confidentiality arrangements agreed with bidders, plus obligations owed by the administrators to individuals under the UK's General Data Protection Regulations, means they are unable to confirm the identity of any bidder without the express consent from the relevant bidder," said Birch.
"As you can imagine this is extremely frustrating for us. Firstly, with considerable experience in this area we believe we can help review any proposed exit plans to identify any issues as early as possible so we can then work with them to try to find any potential solutions.
"Secondly, we will have significant work to do on verification of compliance with the Owners' and Directors' Test, as well as an assessment of the ultimate source and sufficiency of funding. This clearly cannot start until we have the necessary information."
Quantuma have relied on external funding through the American financiers MSD Holdings since they were appointed in September. However, Birch points out this approach carries risk.
"The administrators have funded the ongoing trading losses with further advances from an external funder which has security on the stadium," he added.
"This of course has created a liability that the administrators need a prospective purchaser to repay as part of the sale consideration. This debt has obviously grown with every passing month of administration trading."
Derby would be allowed to start the 2022-23 League One season in administration. However, Quantuma will have to show how they intend to fund the club at break-even level throughout the campaign.
Wayne Rooney's squad is due to begin pre-season training on 27 June, although the manager's position has yet to be clarified and the club only have five contracted senior players beyond the end of this month.
Also it seems ongoing funding (wages etc) is basically being paid for by loans which are secured on the ground.And interest is being added to this debt which has to be paid off by the incoming owner. So basically any new owner is currently paying for the "club" even though they don't currently own it. Bonkers. Bit like buying a house & having to pay the vendors mortgage from the time you put your offer in to the time of completion.
I predict Derby will still be in Administration when the season starts and "assurances" will be given that there will be sufficient funding for them to complete the season - because the loan company will be happy to keep funding their club as they will get paid at some point & EFL dont have the rules to stop it.