New Buyer Progress

[swaledale]

That was precisely my point...and I simply don’t understand the motivation of any credible potential buyer to have not seized the opportunity
to cut a deal a month or so ago when the dual possibilities of escaping relegation and squad strengthening were much more likely.

I suppose it’s easy for us, non financially expert fans, to criticise the administrators. I’d like one of those who is more ‘in the know’ regarding the complexities of finance and accountancy, to explain what, if anything, they have achieved, other than probably lining their own pockets and seeing us slip deeper and deeper into the mire, since their involvement began last September.

rA I'm not sure your analogy with selling your house works - after all the only person who needed to be satisfied on the price was you (and possibly any mortgage company) - with the football club, there's multiple creditors, plus the companies with loans etc secured against the stadium etc. Very complex and even when or if a preferred bidder is named, it will be 12 weeks or more to complete the sale!

[ramAnag]

rA I'm not sure your analogy with selling your house works - after all the only person who needed to be satisfied on the price was you (and possibly any mortgage company) - with the football club, there's multiple creditors, plus the companies with loans etc secured against the stadium etc. Very complex and even when or if a preferred bidder is named, it will be 12 weeks or more to complete the sale!

Probably right. Although it was AF who introduced the analogy...I just ran with it, not very successfully.

I think my, admittedly inexpert point, was that...while the likes of GP, AF and yourself have a better (more professional) understanding of the role of the administrators, the view of most ordinary fans is that they were brought in to a) sort out all the aspects of alleged financial malpractice and b) secure the future of DCFC as an entity which is crucial to the well being of its supporters and the areas of Derby and Derbyshire.

From a layman’s point of view, and according to GP’s presumably more informed ‘winviz’ comments, they do appear to have failed, probably at great expense, on both counts.

[Andy_Faber]

Probably right. Although it was AF who introduced the analogy...I just ran with it, not very successfully.

I think my, admittedly inexpert point, was that...while the likes of GP, AF and yourself have a better (more professional) understanding of the role of the administrators, the view of most ordinary fans is that they were brought in to a) sort out all the aspects of alleged financial malpractice and b) secure the future of DCFC as an entity which is crucial to the well being of its supporters and the areas of Derby and Derbyshire.

From a layman’s point of view, and according to GP’s presumably more informed ‘winviz’ comments, they do appear to have failed, probably at great expense, on both counts.

Yes you’re right, the layman must be well pissed off, even those with a slight business insight like me are. The analogy is valid imo as it represents the inertia present at a much lower level

[Geoff Parkstone]

Probably right. Although it was AF who introduced the analogy...I just ran with it, not very successfully.

I think my, admittedly inexpert point, was that...while the likes of GP, AF and yourself have a better (more professional) understanding of the role of the administrators, the view of most ordinary fans is that they were brought in to a) sort out all the aspects of alleged financial malpractice and b) secure the future of DCFC as an entity which is crucial to the well being of its supporters and the areas of Derby and Derbyshire.

From a layman’s point of view, and according to GP’s presumably more informed ‘winviz’ comments, they do appear to have failed, probably at great expense, on both counts.

The layman perspective is thus very "lay". Administrators do not sort out alleged financial malpractice - but if they uncover it there is a whistleblower responsibility. Their primary purpose is to stabilise the situation and work out a way forward that is better for stakeholders than liquidation. Fans are a stakeholder, albeit not financially significantly so - only for advance season ticket sales generally. The soft community aspects are nice to satisfy, but not a primary objective of the administration role.

[ramAnag]

The layman perspective is thus very "lay". Administrators do not sort out alleged financial malpractice - but if they uncover it there is a whistleblower responsibility. Their primary purpose is to stabilise the situation and work out a way forward that is better for stakeholders than liquidation. Fans are a stakeholder, albeit not financially significantly so - only for advance season ticket sales generally. The soft community aspects are nice to satisfy, but not a primary objective of the administration role.

I think we’re getting into semantics again.
When I said ‘financial malpractice’ I was referring to things that are already common knowledge, eg. the amount owed in overdue tax, the amounts owed to various service providers, the amount owed regarding certain transfers, the amount of ‘wrongdoing’ as regards FFP etc.
There is no element of ‘whistleblowing’ required in any of those matters because it is already known that those things have happened.

If the administrators aren’t going to ‘sort out’ such issues, and they’ve now had seven months, and they aren’t going to secure the club’s future and protect us from the increasingly likely, according to you, prospect of liquidation...then what have they been doing all this time?

[Geoff Parkstone]

It maybe semantics to you, but when you ask for "professional advice" as to what the admins do, don't come the raw prawn with me because you've mis-described the question/process yourself.

The things you describe are not malpractice, but in reality are quite commonplace in companies struggling with cashflow (and thus ending in administration) because sadly HMRC are a soft touch. Many of the smaller creditors caught up in the mess are probably only owed money on normal trade terms, or again have lax credit control.

If they did find real malpractice, then whistleblowing would very much be within their remit.

What they have been doing is trying to find a non liquidation solution, and, given the complexities of structure created by MM, the twin interferences of compensation claims and a sometimes unhelpful regulator, this takes time. Plus in a post covid world with economic worries in the air for many reasons (war, brexit and, and....) it isn't easy to flog an old donkey for the price of a racehorse

[ramAnag]

It maybe semantics to you, but when you ask for "professional advice" as to what the admins do, don't come the raw prawn with me because you've mis-described the question/process yourself.

The things you describe are not malpractice, but in reality are quite commonplace in companies struggling with cashflow (and thus ending in administration) because sadly HMRC are a soft touch. Many of the smaller creditors caught up in the mess are probably only owed money on normal trade terms, or again have lax credit control.

If they did find real malpractice, then whistleblowing would very much be within their remit.

What they have been doing is trying to find a non liquidation solution, and, given the complexities of structure created by MM, the twin interferences of compensation claims and a sometimes unhelpful regulator, this takes time. Plus in a post covid world with economic worries in the air for many reasons (war, brexit and, and....) it isn't easy to flog an old donkey for the price of a racehorse

You call it ‘complexities of structure’...I say ‘financial malpractice’...you say ‘it takes time’...I say ‘they’ve had seven months of it’.
You have a better understanding of the whole process, it is, after all, your profession...unfortunately it is only convincing me further that the administrators seem to be another example of the ‘Emperor’s new clothes’.

Beyond that, you seem to have got out of the wrong side of bed today so I’ll leave it there.

[swaledale]

You call it ‘complexities of structure’...I say ‘financial malpractice’...you say ‘it takes time’...I say ‘they’ve had seven months of it’.
You have a better understanding of the whole process, it is, after all, your profession...unfortunately it is only convincing me further that the administrators seem to be another example of the ‘Emperor’s new clothes’.

Beyond that, you seem to have got out of the wrong side of bed today so I’ll leave it there.

rA I think you have a point in describing it as financial malpractice, its true that to various degrees business owners resort to desperate measures when things get sticky, some are justified, others distinctly dodgy and actually unlawful - not paying HMRC being the latter but if there no business to sue what do you do? And as we have seen with the ramifications of the war in Ukraine, business regulation and pursuing fraud and corruption is not terribly good in the UK!

However your criticism of the time taken to get a new buyer in is unjustified, sure the Administrators could and should have been batter communicators - the fact they said before Christmas they would be naming a preferred bidder "imminently" and here we are in March no wiser. - being an example. Also much of what they have said contradicts subsequent events.

But it is not uncommon for a company to be in administration for 12 months, especially if there is a complex structure and a number of different creditors.

So I'm less concerned that it is taking time, more concerned over the contradictory statements and the impression that its not been handled very well.

[ramAnag]

rA I think you have a point in describing it as financial malpractice, its true that to various degrees business owners resort to desperate measures when things get sticky, some are justified, others distinctly dodgy and actually unlawful - not paying HMRC being the latter but if there no business to sue what do you do? And as we have seen with the ramifications of the war in Ukraine, business regulation and pursuing fraud and corruption is not terribly good in the UK!

However your criticism of the time taken to get a new buyer in is unjustified, sure the Administrators could and should have been batter communicators - the fact they said before Christmas they would be naming a preferred bidder "imminently" and here we are in March no wiser. - being an example. Also much of what they have said contradicts subsequent events.

But it is not uncommon for a company to be in administration for 12 months, especially if there is a complex structure and a number of different creditors.

So I'm less concerned that it is taking time, more concerned over the contradictory statements and the impression that its not been handled very well.

I’m sure you’re right about it not being ‘uncommon for a company to be in administration for 12 months’, Swale...is it not the case though that when, as in the case of DCFC, the organisation/company/club is going to suffer ever increasing penalties/punishment - and even possible liquidation - as a direct result of the length of time taken, that someone needs to step in?

We were told weeks ago that the Middlesbrough ‘resolution’ was to be the turning point but it just seems to have been, yet another, false dawn.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I really, really wish I lived in your world of fairy godmothers and pink unicorns rA, but who is going to "step in" - the administrators role is to find a rescuer they are not just titting around waiting for a miracle to come riding over the horizon If the price goes low enough someone will take a punt, but that may well come with more penalties.