duncanjwitham

We don’t actually know that’s true, do we? We know we had cash flow problems paying HMRC, at the same time we struggled to pay players, but as far as we know that was all cleared up. 

I don't even see how Morris is liable (legally anyway). The whole point of a limited company is to protect the owners from things like this AIUI.  You'd presumably have to prove Morris actually broke the law (which is still far from clear), and then prove that Ashley is an injured party (which is *very* dubious - you're claiming he's lost out because he's chosen, of his own freewill, to pay the fine). (Not a lawyer etc.)

Because he hasn't been declared the victor yet. He doesn't care how pyrrhic his victory is.

Honestly, the "'Boro member on the board" stuff is a bit of a red herring IMO.  We had a member on their previously while the DC/LAP stuff was going on, and it didn't help. It's my understanding that he's required to leave the room when conflicts of interest arise anyway, so in theory he shouldn't be able to influence things.
Arguably, the Forest guy is a worse issue because they are actively trying to buy one of our players, so it's in their interests to pressure us into selling as cheaply as possible.

Not sure the Court of Arbitration for Sport makes sense - I'm sure you need to have exhausted all of your current options to get them to look at anything. They're just going to tell us to go through the EFL's arbitration process first.  If I had to guess, Nixon (or his source) has confused EFL arbitration with the CAS.

The problem is, it will probably come down to the admins saying we need the cash and he'll have to go if there's an offer. Loyalty does nothing if there's no club left to be loyal to. 

Honestly, the "'Boro member on the board" stuff is a bit of a red herring IMO.  We had a member on their previously while the DC/LAP stuff was going on, and it didn't help. It's my understanding that he's required to leave the room when conflicts of interest arise anyway, so in theory he shouldn't be able to influence things.
Arguably, the Forest guy is a worse issue because they are actively trying to buy one of our players, so it's in their interests to pressure us into selling as cheaply as possible.

Not sure the Court of Arbitration for Sport makes sense - I'm sure you need to have exhausted all of your current options to get them to look at anything. They're just going to tell us to go through the EFL's arbitration process first.  If I had to guess, Nixon (or his source) has confused EFL arbitration with the CAS.

Honestly, the "'Boro member on the board" stuff is a bit of a red herring IMO.  We had a member on their previously while the DC/LAP stuff was going on, and it didn't help. It's my understanding that he's required to leave the room when conflicts of interest arise anyway, so in theory he shouldn't be able to influence things.
Arguably, the Forest guy is a worse issue because they are actively trying to buy one of our players, so it's in their interests to pressure us into selling as cheaply as possible.

Honestly, the "'Boro member on the board" stuff is a bit of a red herring IMO.  We had a member on their previously while the DC/LAP stuff was going on, and it didn't help. It's my understanding that he's required to leave the room when conflicts of interest arise anyway, so in theory he shouldn't be able to influence things.
Arguably, the Forest guy is a worse issue because they are actively trying to buy one of our players, so it's in their interests to pressure us into selling as cheaply as possible.

Honestly, the "'Boro member on the board" stuff is a bit of a red herring IMO.  We had a member on their previously while the DC/LAP stuff was going on, and it didn't help. It's my understanding that he's required to leave the room when conflicts of interest arise anyway, so in theory he shouldn't be able to influence things.
Arguably, the Forest guy is a worse issue because they are actively trying to buy one of our players, so it's in their interests to pressure us into selling as cheaply as possible.

If, for example, Everton offered £3m and the admins told him it would be the difference between us going out of business or not, I suspect he probably would. 
 
Beyond something like that, I think it depends how much if a bloodbath the next couple of weeks are. If we say lose a dozen players, get thumped in the next couple of games playing kids, I think he might hold his hands up and say he can’t go on.  Probably frame it as saving the club money.

If, for example, Everton offered £3m and the admins told him it would be the difference between us going out of business or not, I suspect he probably would. 
 
Beyond something like that, I think it depends how much if a bloodbath the next couple of weeks are. If we say lose a dozen players, get thumped in the next couple of games playing kids, I think he might hold his hands up and say he can’t go on.  Probably frame it as saving the club money.

Unless he has a clause in his contract saying he can go for free, or go for a fixed amount or something, we’re free to negotiate a deal for him like we would with a player.
Honestly, as bad as it would be to lose him, he’s quite possibly our most saleable asset right now. We probably wouldn’t get the £4m+ we got for Lampard, but it could potentially be a million or 2.

None of the clubs currently in the league have failed to come out of administration. Can you say “survivorship bias”…

If, for example, Everton offered £3m and the admins told him it would be the difference between us going out of business or not, I suspect he probably would. 
 
Beyond something like that, I think it depends how much if a bloodbath the next couple of weeks are. If we say lose a dozen players, get thumped in the next couple of games playing kids, I think he might hold his hands up and say he can’t go on.  Probably frame it as saving the club money.

What they want is for those claims to be treated as “football creditors”. The EFL rules mean that to come out of admin and stay in the league, we need to pay 100% of what we owe to other football clubs etc.  The EFL want a commitment, in some way or other, that we will pay 100% of anything that it’s decided we owe those 2.

So we either agree a settlement with them now, go through the arbitration process now and get a final decision on what we owe, or get a commitment from the new owner that they will pay 100% of whatever it is. The admins feel that they either legally don’t have to do any of those things, or that they cannot achieve a sale under those terms (and before we run out of money).

What they want is for those claims to be treated as “football creditors”. The EFL rules mean that to come out of admin and stay in the league, we need to pay 100% of what we owe to other football clubs etc.  The EFL want a commitment, in some way or other, that we will pay 100% of anything that it’s decided we owe those 2.

So we either agree a settlement with them now, go through the arbitration process now and get a final decision on what we owe, or get a commitment from the new owner that they will pay 100% of whatever it is. The admins feel that they either legally don’t have to do any of those things, or that they cannot achieve a sale under those terms (and before we run out of money).

I assume they were expecting the EFL to rubber-stamp the exit plan they’ve agreed. They’d then name a preferred bidder on the basis of that plan, who would fund the rest of the season somehow.  The EFL basically told them the plan was unacceptable due to the pair of cretins who must not be named, and we’re back to square one. I assume the admins either believe they legally cannot include those 2 in the exit plan because they have no legal claim to anything, or none of the bidders are willing to take on that risk.

What they want is for those claims to be treated as “football creditors”. The EFL rules mean that to come out of admin and stay in the league, we need to pay 100% of what we owe to other football clubs etc.  The EFL want a commitment, in some way or other, that we will pay 100% of anything that it’s decided we owe those 2.

So we either agree a settlement with them now, go through the arbitration process now and get a final decision on what we owe, or get a commitment from the new owner that they will pay 100% of whatever it is. The admins feel that they either legally don’t have to do any of those things, or that they cannot achieve a sale under those terms (and before we run out of money).

I assume they were expecting the EFL to rubber-stamp the exit plan they’ve agreed. They’d then name a preferred bidder on the basis of that plan, who would fund the rest of the season somehow.  The EFL basically told them the plan was unacceptable due to the pair of cretins who must not be named, and we’re back to square one. I assume the admins either believe they legally cannot include those 2 in the exit plan because they have no legal claim to anything, or none of the bidders are willing to take on that risk.

What they want is for those claims to be treated as “football creditors”. The EFL rules mean that to come out of admin and stay in the league, we need to pay 100% of what we owe to other football clubs etc.  The EFL want a commitment, in some way or other, that we will pay 100% of anything that it’s decided we owe those 2.

So we either agree a settlement with them now, go through the arbitration process now and get a final decision on what we owe, or get a commitment from the new owner that they will pay 100% of whatever it is. The admins feel that they either legally don’t have to do any of those things, or that they cannot achieve a sale under those terms (and before we run out of money).

What they want is for those claims to be treated as “football creditors”. The EFL rules mean that to come out of admin and stay in the league, we need to pay 100% of what we owe to other football clubs etc.  The EFL want a commitment, in some way or other, that we will pay 100% of anything that it’s decided we owe those 2.

So we either agree a settlement with them now, go through the arbitration process now and get a final decision on what we owe, or get a commitment from the new owner that they will pay 100% of whatever it is. The admins feel that they either legally don’t have to do any of those things, or that they cannot achieve a sale under those terms (and before we run out of money).

I assume they were expecting the EFL to rubber-stamp the exit plan they’ve agreed. They’d then name a preferred bidder on the basis of that plan, who would fund the rest of the season somehow.  The EFL basically told them the plan was unacceptable due to the pair of cretins who must not be named, and we’re back to square one. I assume the admins either believe they legally cannot include those 2 in the exit plan because they have no legal claim to anything, or none of the bidders are willing to take on that risk.

I assume they were expecting the EFL to rubber-stamp the exit plan they’ve agreed. They’d then name a preferred bidder on the basis of that plan, who would fund the rest of the season somehow.  The EFL basically told them the plan was unacceptable due to the pair of cretins who must not be named, and we’re back to square one. I assume the admins either believe they legally cannot include those 2 in the exit plan because they have no legal claim to anything, or none of the bidders are willing to take on that risk.