duncanjwitham

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.

DET saying a bid has been accepted, but no other details.

I'm going to log out until tomorrow and see what the Islay single malt does for my mood.
 
 

I suspect that’s legally right, but the EFL probably have the right to kick us out of the league if we exit admin in a manner they don’t like. Which basically makes us unsaleable if there’s a chance it happens, and de facto gives them the right to stop us leaving admin anyway.

I’m a bit unsure too, but I’ve never heard EFL rules called statutes.
it reads to me like the EFL are demanding we treat ‘Boro and Wycombe as a type of creditor that legally we aren’t allowed to do.

I’m assuming the fact it’s seemingly gone from 2 to 3 in the last few days, suggests that Ashley has joined Appleby and Gasby.

I’m a bit unsure too, but I’ve never heard EFL rules called statutes.
it reads to me like the EFL are demanding we treat ‘Boro and Wycombe as a type of creditor that legally we aren’t allowed to do.

I’m a bit unsure too, but I’ve never heard EFL rules called statutes.
it reads to me like the EFL are demanding we treat ‘Boro and Wycombe as a type of creditor that legally we aren’t allowed to do.

Basically confirmed what we all think then. We have an exit plan ready to,go, but the EFL won’t allow us to put it into action until we’ve paid off ‘boro and Wycombe.

I’m assuming the fact it’s seemingly gone from 2 to 3 in the last few days, suggests that Ashley has joined Appleby and Gasby.

Basically confirmed what we all think then. We have an exit plan ready to,go, but the EFL won’t allow us to put it into action until we’ve paid off ‘boro and Wycombe.

Basically confirmed what we all think then. We have an exit plan ready to,go, but the EFL won’t allow us to put it into action until we’ve paid off ‘boro and Wycombe.

*If*, for example, HMRC are saying we will only take 100% and the bidders are saying we'll only pay 25%, then I don't see what Quantuma can actually do.  The same with 'Boro and Wycombe, if there's a gaping chasm between what those clubs would agree to and what potential bidders are willing to cover, then again, I don't see what they can possibly do.  They can't force those parties to radically alter their demands. 
I think you have to assume that Quantuma are acting in good faith, because there really isn't that much incentive for them to not.  They risk losing their license to practice if they are genuinely being dodgy, and even beyond that, the last thing they want is a reputation for screwing things up.  If you're after an administrator, particularly as a another football club, would you want the ones that liquidated Derby County?

The admin team have shown how they intend to fund the club but the EFL don't like it.

There's an obvious  disconnect between what the club had expected from EFL and what they got. 

There is a common factor in this. It's being going on for two years, you can't blame the admin team for this.   

*If*, for example, HMRC are saying we will only take 100% and the bidders are saying we'll only pay 25%, then I don't see what Quantuma can actually do.  The same with 'Boro and Wycombe, if there's a gaping chasm between what those clubs would agree to and what potential bidders are willing to cover, then again, I don't see what they can possibly do.  They can't force those parties to radically alter their demands. 
I think you have to assume that Quantuma are acting in good faith, because there really isn't that much incentive for them to not.  They risk losing their license to practice if they are genuinely being dodgy, and even beyond that, the last thing they want is a reputation for screwing things up.  If you're after an administrator, particularly as a another football club, would you want the ones that liquidated Derby County?

*If*, for example, HMRC are saying we will only take 100% and the bidders are saying we'll only pay 25%, then I don't see what Quantuma can actually do.  The same with 'Boro and Wycombe, if there's a gaping chasm between what those clubs would agree to and what potential bidders are willing to cover, then again, I don't see what they can possibly do.  They can't force those parties to radically alter their demands. 
I think you have to assume that Quantuma are acting in good faith, because there really isn't that much incentive for them to not.  They risk losing their license to practice if they are genuinely being dodgy, and even beyond that, the last thing they want is a reputation for screwing things up.  If you're after an administrator, particularly as a another football club, would you want the ones that liquidated Derby County?

*If*, for example, HMRC are saying we will only take 100% and the bidders are saying we'll only pay 25%, then I don't see what Quantuma can actually do.  The same with 'Boro and Wycombe, if there's a gaping chasm between what those clubs would agree to and what potential bidders are willing to cover, then again, I don't see what they can possibly do.  They can't force those parties to radically alter their demands. 
I think you have to assume that Quantuma are acting in good faith, because there really isn't that much incentive for them to not.  They risk losing their license to practice if they are genuinely being dodgy, and even beyond that, the last thing they want is a reputation for screwing things up.  If you're after an administrator, particularly as a another football club, would you want the ones that liquidated Derby County?

*If*, for example, HMRC are saying we will only take 100% and the bidders are saying we'll only pay 25%, then I don't see what Quantuma can actually do.  The same with 'Boro and Wycombe, if there's a gaping chasm between what those clubs would agree to and what potential bidders are willing to cover, then again, I don't see what they can possibly do.  They can't force those parties to radically alter their demands. 
I think you have to assume that Quantuma are acting in good faith, because there really isn't that much incentive for them to not.  They risk losing their license to practice if they are genuinely being dodgy, and even beyond that, the last thing they want is a reputation for screwing things up.  If you're after an administrator, particularly as a another football club, would you want the ones that liquidated Derby County?

*If*, for example, HMRC are saying we will only take 100% and the bidders are saying we'll only pay 25%, then I don't see what Quantuma can actually do.  The same with 'Boro and Wycombe, if there's a gaping chasm between what those clubs would agree to and what potential bidders are willing to cover, then again, I don't see what they can possibly do.  They can't force those parties to radically alter their demands. 
I think you have to assume that Quantuma are acting in good faith, because there really isn't that much incentive for them to not.  They risk losing their license to practice if they are genuinely being dodgy, and even beyond that, the last thing they want is a reputation for screwing things up.  If you're after an administrator, particularly as a another football club, would you want the ones that liquidated Derby County?

*If*, for example, HMRC are saying we will only take 100% and the bidders are saying we'll only pay 25%, then I don't see what Quantuma can actually do.  The same with 'Boro and Wycombe, if there's a gaping chasm between what those clubs would agree to and what potential bidders are willing to cover, then again, I don't see what they can possibly do.  They can't force those parties to radically alter their demands. 
I think you have to assume that Quantuma are acting in good faith, because there really isn't that much incentive for them to not.  They risk losing their license to practice if they are genuinely being dodgy, and even beyond that, the last thing they want is a reputation for screwing things up.  If you're after an administrator, particularly as a another football club, would you want the ones that liquidated Derby County?

I don't see why it would, unless there's been some burning of bridges between him and Rooney over it (which I think is pretty unlikely). Most likely scenario is he's already signed for someone else before we're in a position to sign him again though ?

Part of me wonders if the EFL actually rejected their choice of preferred bidder.  I'm genuinely struggling to see many explanations for what's happened over the last 24 hours, but that is certainly one that covers everything.

Clearly the admins thought they were in a position where the EFL would allow signings/renewals to be made, so either the admins completely failed to understand the rules they were working to, or something has changed with the EFL's stance.

Clearly the admins thought they were in a position where the EFL would allow signings/renewals to be made, so either the admins completely failed to understand the rules they were working to, or something has changed with the EFL's stance.

Clearly the admins thought they were in a position where the EFL would allow signings/renewals to be made, so either the admins completely failed to understand the rules they were working to, or something has changed with the EFL's stance.