CornwallRam

Quite a bit I'd say. The royalties from Jolene alone must be a million a year at least. ?

Quite a bit I'd say. The royalties from Jolene alone must be a million a year at least. ?

Quite a bit I'd say. The royalties from Jolene alone must be a million a year at least. ?

This is what I'm struggling to understand- if Appleby has made a bid, why is the process ongoing?
Unless something drastic has happened, he'll walk the fit and proper test. I can't believe someone of his standing would bid without secured funding. If Appleby has bid enough to take us out of administration and retain the golden share, why has his hand not been snapped off?...assuming it hasn't. Same would go for Ashley or Morgan.
The only conclusion I can draw is that the bid isn't sufficient to retain the golden share. So why haven't Quantuma said, 'no bids can be accepted of less than £21m (or whatever the base figure happens to be), as they won't be sufficient to retain the golden share.
At this point, surely it can't be that complicated - there must be an actual minimum figure, unless everyone is trying to square HMRC
 

This is what I'm struggling to understand- if Appleby has made a bid, why is the process ongoing?
Unless something drastic has happened, he'll walk the fit and proper test. I can't believe someone of his standing would bid without secured funding. If Appleby has bid enough to take us out of administration and retain the golden share, why has his hand not been snapped off?...assuming it hasn't. Same would go for Ashley or Morgan.
The only conclusion I can draw is that the bid isn't sufficient to retain the golden share. So why haven't Quantuma said, 'no bids can be accepted of less than £21m (or whatever the base figure happens to be), as they won't be sufficient to retain the golden share.
At this point, surely it can't be that complicated - there must be an actual minimum figure, unless everyone is trying to square HMRC
 

Kelly from Northampton lent him the money to cover it. She really wanted to help her fiancé out, so that bridging loan secured against her home was no problem. He'll pay her back as soon as his money clears...and he must have forgotten that he was getting a new phone as his number is now disconnected. 

Duh, haven't you been paying attention? The EFL demanded that they see all correspondence! ?

This is what I'm struggling to understand- if Appleby has made a bid, why is the process ongoing?
Unless something drastic has happened, he'll walk the fit and proper test. I can't believe someone of his standing would bid without secured funding. If Appleby has bid enough to take us out of administration and retain the golden share, why has his hand not been snapped off?...assuming it hasn't. Same would go for Ashley or Morgan.
The only conclusion I can draw is that the bid isn't sufficient to retain the golden share. So why haven't Quantuma said, 'no bids can be accepted of less than £21m (or whatever the base figure happens to be), as they won't be sufficient to retain the golden share.
At this point, surely it can't be that complicated - there must be an actual minimum figure, unless everyone is trying to square HMRC
 

This is what I'm struggling to understand- if Appleby has made a bid, why is the process ongoing?
Unless something drastic has happened, he'll walk the fit and proper test. I can't believe someone of his standing would bid without secured funding. If Appleby has bid enough to take us out of administration and retain the golden share, why has his hand not been snapped off?...assuming it hasn't. Same would go for Ashley or Morgan.
The only conclusion I can draw is that the bid isn't sufficient to retain the golden share. So why haven't Quantuma said, 'no bids can be accepted of less than £21m (or whatever the base figure happens to be), as they won't be sufficient to retain the golden share.
At this point, surely it can't be that complicated - there must be an actual minimum figure, unless everyone is trying to square HMRC
 

Duh, haven't you been paying attention? The EFL demanded that they see all correspondence! ?

The end of the day the whole football finicial system is broke! Clubs are encouraged to gamble and spend big to get into the prem, then if they go down get the parachute payments! I dont know how to fix it but i know for sure its broke! 

Very nearly:-)

Except it’s worse ... 
It’s obvious that the Sheikh, Alonso and CK are - give or take a few hundred lbs - almost definitely the same person. Which can mean only one thing...   Parry has employed Sacha Baron Cohen to impersonate successive bidders in an attempt to bamboozle poor q and seal our fate.
 
We could end up with Borat 

Sheep sh@g army! ?

This will cheer you all up ? 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-61797459

Sheep sh@g army! ?

Man claims to have sent money. Money doesn't arrive.
Man claims money has been sent but the delay is anti money laundering check.
Money never does arrive.
Logically there are two options.
A, it was never sent.
B, it failed the anti money laundering check.
Whichever was the case, was that really someone we wanted owning our club?

Sheep sh@g army! ?

Have to say that I was taken in hook, line and sinker. It was only the words 'Bank Holidays' when the alarm bells started to ring. ?

No, I believe the rules say 25/35 to the unsecured creditors, which is only a very small amount of the debt. 
The difference between 10% and 25% is considerably less than a £1m and definitely not worth taking -15.
I'm with Mostyn on this. It's a full deal or no deal. 
The only way I can see -15 is if we fail another term of the insolvency rules - which don't appear to be in the public domain so it's impossible to know. However, the penalty for failing any part of it is upto -15.
One option is not being able to show a 10 year tenancy agreement for the stadium. 

No, I believe the rules say 25/35 to the unsecured creditors, which is only a very small amount of the debt. 
The difference between 10% and 25% is considerably less than a £1m and definitely not worth taking -15.
I'm with Mostyn on this. It's a full deal or no deal. 
The only way I can see -15 is if we fail another term of the insolvency rules - which don't appear to be in the public domain so it's impossible to know. However, the penalty for failing any part of it is upto -15.
One option is not being able to show a 10 year tenancy agreement for the stadium. 

the problem is, I doubt there is an "accepting -15".
It's either Golden Share and out of Admin, or out of business. Not sure where the idea that we can land somewhere in between came from.

Man claims to have sent money. Money doesn't arrive.
Man claims money has been sent but the delay is anti money laundering check.
Money never does arrive.
Logically there are two options.
A, it was never sent.
B, it failed the anti money laundering check.
Whichever was the case, was that really someone we wanted owning our club?

Man claims to have sent money. Money doesn't arrive.
Man claims money has been sent but the delay is anti money laundering check.
Money never does arrive.
Logically there are two options.
A, it was never sent.
B, it failed the anti money laundering check.
Whichever was the case, was that really someone we wanted owning our club?

Man claims to have sent money. Money doesn't arrive.
Man claims money has been sent but the delay is anti money laundering check.
Money never does arrive.
Logically there are two options.
A, it was never sent.
B, it failed the anti money laundering check.
Whichever was the case, was that really someone we wanted owning our club?