duncanjwitham

I really don't think that's a good group of centre halves for a back 3 though.  In a back 3, the wider centre halves basically have to be able to play as fullbacks, because they have to come out wide and support the wingback when attacks are coming down that side.  So they need to be able to deal with tricky wingers running at them.  Forsyth and Chester can both do it, but Chester barely played all season, and Forsyth is the wrong side of 30 and was being played on his wrong foot towards the end of the season.  Cashin, Davies and Stearman are all far better at tackling, winning headers, engaging physically with strikers etc, than dealing with pace running at them.  If you play them in the wider positions you're just exposing them to what they're weakest at.  
And if you don't have your wide centre halves coming out to support, you either have to have wingers helping out (in which case you aren't playing a back 3, you're playing a very negative back 5), or you get killed out wide because they've got an overload every single time they get the ball out there.
And it was like that all over the team.  We had Cashin forced into dealing with pace, Forsyth on his wrong foot, Knight and Roberts playing as wingbacks (when neither of them can cross, neither of them are particularly good dribblers etc), NML as a Number 10.  That's 5 players in positions they aren't totally comfortable with.  And if you start shuffling those players into positions they are comfortable with, it just creates problems elsewhere (NML, Barkhuizen at wingback etc). With the back 4, we had one of Knight or Smith at right back, and sometimes Sibley at left back. That's 1 or 2.
Fundamentally, I think the big reason we struggled to score goals last season was we seemed to lack any kind of game-plan going forward.  We didn't seem to be setting out specifically to do anything, it was just run around a lot and hope we can force them into a mistake.  So that meant we were very reliant on individual players winning games for us.  And if you're in that kind of position, the more players you have in positions they aren't comfortable with, the harder it's going to be to win games.

Depends exactly what they mean by "sued" (and I'm not clicking a Daily Mail link to find out in this particular case).  "Suing" through the official league arbitration method is absolutely fine, "suing" through other methods (UK courts, the FA, Court of arbitration for sport etc) is not allowed (for things that are specifically required by league rules to go through arbitration anyway).
Obviously in this case things may be complicated even more by the mix of EFL and PL clubs involved (and clubs that are actively in the process of moving between those 2 leagues).

I suspect it’s as simple as Forsyth can play the wider centre half positions in a back 3, where as Davies really can’t.  Plus he can still play as a fullback if needs be.  If we’re playing a back 3 then Forsyth is versatile cover for pretty much the whole backline, Davies is only really emergency cover for the central spot.

A big part of Brentford’s reasoning was how difficult it is for them to compete for local players with the big London clubs.  We don’t really have that problem, we’ve got excellent facilities and a big local catchment area.

I suspect it’s as simple as Forsyth can play the wider centre half positions in a back 3, where as Davies really can’t.  Plus he can still play as a fullback if needs be.  If we’re playing a back 3 then Forsyth is versatile cover for pretty much the whole backline, Davies is only really emergency cover for the central spot.

I suspect it’s as simple as Forsyth can play the wider centre half positions in a back 3, where as Davies really can’t.  Plus he can still play as a fullback if needs be.  If we’re playing a back 3 then Forsyth is versatile cover for pretty much the whole backline, Davies is only really emergency cover for the central spot.

I suspect it’s as simple as Forsyth can play the wider centre half positions in a back 3, where as Davies really can’t.  Plus he can still play as a fullback if needs be.  If we’re playing a back 3 then Forsyth is versatile cover for pretty much the whole backline, Davies is only really emergency cover for the central spot.

I suspect it’s as simple as Forsyth can play the wider centre half positions in a back 3, where as Davies really can’t.  Plus he can still play as a fullback if needs be.  If we’re playing a back 3 then Forsyth is versatile cover for pretty much the whole backline, Davies is only really emergency cover for the central spot.

I suspect it’s as simple as Forsyth can play the wider centre half positions in a back 3, where as Davies really can’t.  Plus he can still play as a fullback if needs be.  If we’re playing a back 3 then Forsyth is versatile cover for pretty much the whole backline, Davies is only really emergency cover for the central spot.

I suspect it’s as simple as Forsyth can play the wider centre half positions in a back 3, where as Davies really can’t.  Plus he can still play as a fullback if needs be.  If we’re playing a back 3 then Forsyth is versatile cover for pretty much the whole backline, Davies is only really emergency cover for the central spot.

Sky Sports pundits having a serious discussion about whether Warne will be sacked if we don’t go up… 🤷‍♂️

Sky Sports pundits having a serious discussion about whether Warne will be sacked if we don’t go up… 🤷‍♂️

Sky Sports pundits having a serious discussion about whether Warne will be sacked if we don’t go up… 🤷‍♂️

Sky Sports pundits having a serious discussion about whether Warne will be sacked if we don’t go up… 🤷‍♂️

I'd be very wary of adding approximate numbers up and jumping to conclusions like that.  We know the MSD loan was for £20m at the time we went into admin, but we know that Quantuma borrowed additional money from MSD to fund costs during admin (an additional £3.75m, per the admins report in April 2022).  It's far more likely IMO that this accounts for any discrepancy between quoted figures.

Except they don't though, because we only have approximate figures from newspaper reports for most of them.  And even then, the Derby telegraph were reporting Morris paid Gibson £3m, not £2m:
 https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-middlesbrough-morris-gibson-kirchner-7083230
And here's the companies house info for the stadium company, that shows a new MSD charge being added against Pride Park on November 4th, which is well after we went into admin.  And which was cleared shortly after we left admin.  Which all tallies up with what I suggested above.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11420460/filing-history

It's very easy to say "he shouldn't have been allowed to" after the fact, but much harder to put in a set of rules that catches people like Kirchner before.  As has been said already, he's managed to convince Quantuma, the EFL, Preston, Rooney/Stretford and co that he was fine.  He's managed to convince the likes of Goldman Sachs to invest in his company.  So he was clearly capable of passing any of the sort of financial/company-ownership checks that could be done.
You could start doing non-financial/ownership checks (some sort of "we only want people with a track record of working in football" or something), but then you probably end up blocking David Clowes too.  (And as an aside, I'd love to see what kind of checks people think would pass Clowes but not allow someone like Mel Morris through.)
So you're left with the "put £Xm in escrow upfront"-type checks, but that's basically where we got to with Kirchner anyway.  He couldn't produce the money so the deal fell through (and so the process worked, arguably???).  You can demand it earlier in the process, but that's just going to put off the majority of owners.  If you're spending millions on a football club, you almost certainly don't have that cash sitting in a bank account somewhere ready to go.  You will be borrowing some (from a bank or through investors), or liquidating some of your personal assets in some way, and potential owners aren't going to start doing either of those things until the deal is actually going through (which again, is where the Kirchner deal actually fell through.)

From what I remember, Morris had already agreed to waive everything that he was owed - I’m sure there was a statement from Quantuma to that effect at some point.  If that’s true, any extra costs would come from the remaining unsecured creditors.

It’s pretty standard practice that if you’re working away from home, you expense your meals while you’re away. And there were presumably multiple members of staff, having multiple meals a day for at least a couple of months at the beginning.  That all adds up pretty quickly.  It’s not just food either, it’s labelled Subsistence, which probably covers a bunch more stuff.
You can argue if they should do it or not, but if you start refusing what are considered normal perks of the job, you’re just restricting the pool of willing administrators even more (when it was apparently pretty small to start with).
As far as I know, Quantuma can take it to court if they reject, with the risk that creditors end up losing even more, with legal fees being spent fighting it.

That's how it always is though. There's some grain of truth somewhere, but he runs with it without checking anything properly.  He clearly isn't just making random stuff up or anything, but he does stuff like this often enough that you can't take anything he says at face value IMO.
He implied that the company that did our admin had gone bust, and that's obviously not the case here. He's previously tweeted about Derby having to pay HMRC 100% under their new settlement rules, which also wasn't true.  A while back he tweeted something about one of Mel Morris companies that was based in Pride Park being liquidated, without realising Pride Park isn't just the stadium, it's a big business park with loads of companies on.  And that's just the stuff I know about because it's relevant to us.

That's how it always is though. There's some grain of truth somewhere, but he runs with it without checking anything properly.  He clearly isn't just making random stuff up or anything, but he does stuff like this often enough that you can't take anything he says at face value IMO.
He implied that the company that did our admin had gone bust, and that's obviously not the case here. He's previously tweeted about Derby having to pay HMRC 100% under their new settlement rules, which also wasn't true.  A while back he tweeted something about one of Mel Morris companies that was based in Pride Park being liquidated, without realising Pride Park isn't just the stadium, it's a big business park with loads of companies on.  And that's just the stuff I know about because it's relevant to us.

And stuff like this is why I don't trust Maguire on anything - spots something somewhere, immediately jumps on Twitter to show off and then ends up having to delete the tweet when it turns out it was nonsense.

And stuff like this is why I don't trust Maguire on anything - spots something somewhere, immediately jumps on Twitter to show off and then ends up having to delete the tweet when it turns out it was nonsense.

It's very easy to say "he shouldn't have been allowed to" after the fact, but much harder to put in a set of rules that catches people like Kirchner before.  As has been said already, he's managed to convince Quantuma, the EFL, Preston, Rooney/Stretford and co that he was fine.  He's managed to convince the likes of Goldman Sachs to invest in his company.  So he was clearly capable of passing any of the sort of financial/company-ownership checks that could be done.
You could start doing non-financial/ownership checks (some sort of "we only want people with a track record of working in football" or something), but then you probably end up blocking David Clowes too.  (And as an aside, I'd love to see what kind of checks people think would pass Clowes but not allow someone like Mel Morris through.)
So you're left with the "put £Xm in escrow upfront"-type checks, but that's basically where we got to with Kirchner anyway.  He couldn't produce the money so the deal fell through (and so the process worked, arguably???).  You can demand it earlier in the process, but that's just going to put off the majority of owners.  If you're spending millions on a football club, you almost certainly don't have that cash sitting in a bank account somewhere ready to go.  You will be borrowing some (from a bank or through investors), or liquidating some of your personal assets in some way, and potential owners aren't going to start doing either of those things until the deal is actually going through (which again, is where the Kirchner deal actually fell through.)

It's very easy to say "he shouldn't have been allowed to" after the fact, but much harder to put in a set of rules that catches people like Kirchner before.  As has been said already, he's managed to convince Quantuma, the EFL, Preston, Rooney/Stretford and co that he was fine.  He's managed to convince the likes of Goldman Sachs to invest in his company.  So he was clearly capable of passing any of the sort of financial/company-ownership checks that could be done.
You could start doing non-financial/ownership checks (some sort of "we only want people with a track record of working in football" or something), but then you probably end up blocking David Clowes too.  (And as an aside, I'd love to see what kind of checks people think would pass Clowes but not allow someone like Mel Morris through.)
So you're left with the "put £Xm in escrow upfront"-type checks, but that's basically where we got to with Kirchner anyway.  He couldn't produce the money so the deal fell through (and so the process worked, arguably???).  You can demand it earlier in the process, but that's just going to put off the majority of owners.  If you're spending millions on a football club, you almost certainly don't have that cash sitting in a bank account somewhere ready to go.  You will be borrowing some (from a bank or through investors), or liquidating some of your personal assets in some way, and potential owners aren't going to start doing either of those things until the deal is actually going through (which again, is where the Kirchner deal actually fell through.)