Jaggernaut Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) I must admit to thinking on Saturday when the babbling announcer at half-time kept going on about this cheque worth hundreds and this cheque worth thousands, that a hell of a lot of people have been conned big style by those in charge of Dundee FC, aided by the administrators who did a lot of the conning work on behalf of DFC. Edited May 2, 2011 by Jaggernaut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I reckon Harkins will be allowed to leave in the close season for free (or very cheap), allowing him to keep any potential fee that Dundee would have got for him in lieu of the cash they owe him and at the same time robbing us of any further sell on fee. Not sure how this works! Harkins goes to another club for free then gets told that he can keep the nothing that has changed hands in lieu of money that he has lent DFC. Surely he's not that daft! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) Not sure how this works! Harkins goes to another club for free then gets told that he can keep the nothing that has changed hands in lieu of money that he has lent DFC. Surely he's not that daft! No it would be a case of Dundee pricing Harkins at say £150k, buying Club aint prepared to pay that but Dundee want Harkins off the wage bill (or maybe they don't, that's the question really). Soooo Dundee are prepared to let Harkins go for free on the condition the 'buying Club' pay Harkins the money Dundee owe him (about £90K I think). Dundee are rid of a £90K debt, Harkins gets his £90K and the buying Club save £60K. Simples! Oh and the kick in the nuts with that is we don't get any money from the sell-on clause (which would be miniscule anyway) because 25% of zero profit is obviously zero. Edited May 2, 2011 by Steven H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Dundee will only sell Harkins if a good offer comes in, all this stuff they'll need to let him go for nothing, I don't buy that. They've screwed everybody; suppliers, players, tax man, Scottish football. They should have been forced to sell all their players in January to raise funds to give to the creditors, they did the exact opposite. Plus they got round the transfer embargo by singing numerous good players on 'trial'. A bloody joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fredthecheesecloth Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 thought the 'trial' thing was pretty clever, wasn't their fault and in that case they DID play by the rules. say what you like about dundee fans, but it was fantastic to see a scottish football division 1 game played to a FULL ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 thought the 'trial' thing was pretty clever, wasn't their fault and in that case they DID play by the rules. Clearly not in the spirit of the game & bending the rules to the fullest. Not illegal, but like many other things they've done whilst in administration, bordering on cheating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Clearly not in the spirit of the game & bending the rules to the fullest. Not illegal, but like many other things they've done whilst in administration, bordering on cheating. but again the real culprits are the SFL for not anticipating that loophole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 but again the real culprits are the SFL for not anticipating that loophole. And what's the likliehood they'll do anything to fix that before next season? (Just a rhetorical question really). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Passenger Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Soooo Dundee are prepared to let Harkins go for free on the condition the 'buying Club' pay Harkins the money Dundee owe him (about £90K I think). Dundee don't owe Harkins anything. The figure that appeared on the document produced by PKF related to his outstanding contract. It was included for the benefit of any potential buyer. He wasn't released, he continued to be paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Dundee don't owe Harkins anything. The figure that appeared on the document produced by PKF related to his outstanding contract. It was included for the benefit of any potential buyer. He wasn't released, he continued to be paid. Fair enough, was merely clearing up what Scotty thought Willjag meant....and was using ballpark figures anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) Dundee will only sell Harkins if a good offer comes in, all this stuff they'll need to let him go for nothing, I don't buy that. They've screwed everybody; suppliers, players, tax man, Scottish football. They should have been forced to sell all their players in January to raise funds to give to the creditors, they did the exact opposite. Plus they got round the transfer embargo by singing numerous good players on 'trial'. A bloody joke. Why ? By that argument, a garage in financial difficulties gets taken over by new owners. Does the garage have to sell off all of its tools and equipment before they can start operating again ? No one would buy the garage and their creditors would then get nothing. Edit to add - I'm not defending Dundee, just agreeing with the title of this thread. Edited May 3, 2011 by Dick Dastardly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Why ? By that argument, a garage in financial difficulties gets taken over by new owners. Does the garage have to sell off all of its tools and equipment before they can start operating again ? No one would buy the garage and their creditors would then get nothing. Edit to add - I'm not defending Dundee, just agreeing with the title of this thread. Because they can't afford to pay his & other players wages. They very deliberately released the players who had no value to the club, including the management team. Dundee haven't been taken over & are still in admin, they max out their credit card & don't pay any back, then start it all over again, it's fundamentally wrong. But I'm sure they'll never do it again...except come the summer of course. Is it not the duty of the administrator to achieve the best possible outcome for the creditors? He didn't do that & chose not to. If ever go into admin, I want him to be the administrator. How much is he making out of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fearchar Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 ...Is it not the duty of the administrator to achieve the best possible outcome for the creditors? He didn't do that.... That thought did strike me too: is there no professional oversight at all for administrators? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Passenger Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Entering administration protects a company from its creditors. It's fundamentally designed to give companies breathing space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel G Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Dundee F*c*ed the SFL big time, who applied a 25 point deduction and thought they'd sit back and watch them get relegated. The SFL underestimated the expensive squad Dundee had assembled. So the players they overspent on which put them in the mire also saved them from the mire, a case of it pays to cheat. I thought the celebrations on Saturday were in bad taste and maybe wouldn't have been appreciated by the window cleaner who didn't get paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted May 4, 2011 Report Share Posted May 4, 2011 (edited) Why ? By that argument, a garage in financial difficulties gets taken over by new owners. Does the garage have to sell off all of its tools and equipment before they can start operating again ? No one would buy the garage and their creditors would then get nothing. Edit to add - I'm not defending Dundee, just agreeing with the title of this thread. But if that garage had all sorts of really fancy, new tools and equipment - plus lots of extra duplicate stuff it didn't really need - it could sell them off and replace them with a bunch of basic second hand materials which would let it pay more back but still carry on its business. Dundee could have sold on more players who would have brought in a fair bit of cash and replaced them with youngsters and other players of much less quality. They wouldn't have gone out of business - they might have got relegated but they'd still have been in business, so your argument doesn't work. Basically though it seems that the administrator acted much more in Dundee's interests than for any of the creditors. Edited May 4, 2011 by Mr Bunny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted May 4, 2011 Report Share Posted May 4, 2011 But if that garage had all sorts of really fancy, new tools and equipment - plus lots of extra duplicate stuff it didn't really need - it could sell them off and replace them with a bunch of basic second hand materials which would let it pay more back but still carry on its business. Dundee could have sold on more players who would have brought in a fair bit of cash and replaced them with youngsters and other players of much less quality. They wouldn't have gone out of business - they might have got relegated but they'd still have been in business, so your argument doesn't work. Basically though it seems that the administrator acted much more in Dundee's interests than for any of the creditors. No they couldn't. Being in administration results in a transfer embargo. The number 1 priority for the administrator is not to recover funds for the creditors. The number 1 priority is to maintain the business as a going concern. That is the law. Period. The law may be an ass, but getting rid of deadwood and maintaining as many valuable assets as he can is exactly what he should do. The penalties for a football club going into administration are handled by the SFA/SFL and can only be in the form of points penalties, fines or automatic relegation. The last of these would have been a farce in mid season and the 25 point penalty was fairly draconian and at the top end of most estimates. It should have resulted in relegation were it not for a great run that would have won them the league. You can't fault Dundee for playing the system, you can fault the system for allowing all of the players on trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.