Hanny

I understand the anger, the supposition, and the what-ifs. This is a forum…forums are built on what-ifs. But I am seeing some grasp onto so called ‘details’ as truths. Which seems to be causing unnecessary disputes. 
 
In any negotiation, facts and figures change daily (if not hourly). So we can only really work with the latest data that’s been offered. 
 
The biggest piece being:
The administrators are (in the best way they can while staying with in the guidelines of an accredited legal entity) claiming they have bids for the club that satisfy the needs of the creditors and Club. and want the EFL to clarify why that isn’t good enough for the EFL. 
 
In my eyes- Todays statement from the administrators was a pretty massive shot across the bow. As I eluded in my previous post a couple pages back. After todays statement by the admin. The onus rests completely with the EFL to explain to everybody(including some pretty itchy creditors) why they are not ratifying the club sale. 
 
 

If I’m understanding the current situation:
1. We have 3 offers that have satisfied the administrators, 1 of which is seemingly the best (preferred bid). Meaning these offers cover the debts, and sale of club assets. 
 
2. Because of my first point, all that’s left in the process is for the EFL to sign off on the bids as meeting all necessary steps( which they seem to do from what I infer from the admins statement).
3. EFL say, we can’t sign off on those bids because we want you to settle these other claims first( which from what I’ve seen and has been suggested by the admins is outside of the EFLs remit.)
 
4. The admins respond by saying- hold up, you don’t have jurisdiction to NOT sign off on these bids for the club. Which is why the administrators are requesting immediate clarification on why the EFL think they can enforce such a demand. 

5. I would imagine the creditors are raising an eyebrow. If the EFL are indeed standing in the way of the creditors becoming whole with official bids, then the EFL should expect quite a bit of heat from the creditors to confirm why they won’t allow the sale to be ratified. 
 
Are those the basic plot points we have currently? 
 

As I understand it:
the path forward WAS having a bid come through that satisfied the administrators (which is on behalf of the creditors, and ultimately satisfy club asset purchase as well).
That path was found and met by the 3 offers the Admin claim to have. Now EFL are saying, no, we want you to settle these other claims first. To which the administrators are saying- you have no jurisdiction to make that demand.
So the EFL must explain (to all, including the creditors) why they are demanding something more then is needed to ratify the club sale. 
To note: it is my understanding the EFL have no remit to stop a sale because of an outstanding claim by another club. 

If I’m understanding the current situation:
1. We have 3 offers that have satisfied the administrators, 1 of which is seemingly the best (preferred bid). Meaning these offers cover the debts, and sale of club assets. 
 
2. Because of my first point, all that’s left in the process is for the EFL to sign off on the bids as meeting all necessary steps( which they seem to do from what I infer from the admins statement).
3. EFL say, we can’t sign off on those bids because we want you to settle these other claims first( which from what I’ve seen and has been suggested by the admins is outside of the EFLs remit.)
 
4. The admins respond by saying- hold up, you don’t have jurisdiction to NOT sign off on these bids for the club. Which is why the administrators are requesting immediate clarification on why the EFL think they can enforce such a demand. 

5. I would imagine the creditors are raising an eyebrow. If the EFL are indeed standing in the way of the creditors becoming whole with official bids, then the EFL should expect quite a bit of heat from the creditors to confirm why they won’t allow the sale to be ratified. 
 
Are those the basic plot points we have currently? 
 

As I understand it:
the path forward WAS having a bid come through that satisfied the administrators (which is on behalf of the creditors, and ultimately satisfy club asset purchase as well).
That path was found and met by the 3 offers the Admin claim to have. Now EFL are saying, no, we want you to settle these other claims first. To which the administrators are saying- you have no jurisdiction to make that demand.
So the EFL must explain (to all, including the creditors) why they are demanding something more then is needed to ratify the club sale. 
To note: it is my understanding the EFL have no remit to stop a sale because of an outstanding claim by another club. 

Mate. You must be trolling with these comments (you’ve made a few, but I just grabbed this one). 
 
The information available to us points to the EFL being the one holding things up. 
 
You keep saying they haven’t added anything, or they are just following the rules. That they aren’t stopping the admins from accepting a bid. 
 
But those are precisely the things that have happened- as proven by the Admins  statement today (and honestly been backed up by the actions/words of Rooney and such).
 
The statement by the Admins. Rooneys comments about things almost finalized, and moving to re-sign and find new players.  Even ole Alan Nixon said the EFLs position appears to be extreme.
 
I don’t understand how you could think the EFL are just hands tied innocent (as your posts seem to suggest) in this situation.

I understand the anger, the supposition, and the what-ifs. This is a forum…forums are built on what-ifs. But I am seeing some grasp onto so called ‘details’ as truths. Which seems to be causing unnecessary disputes. 
 
In any negotiation, facts and figures change daily (if not hourly). So we can only really work with the latest data that’s been offered. 
 
The biggest piece being:
The administrators are (in the best way they can while staying with in the guidelines of an accredited legal entity) claiming they have bids for the club that satisfy the needs of the creditors and Club. and want the EFL to clarify why that isn’t good enough for the EFL. 
 
In my eyes- Todays statement from the administrators was a pretty massive shot across the bow. As I eluded in my previous post a couple pages back. After todays statement by the admin. The onus rests completely with the EFL to explain to everybody(including some pretty itchy creditors) why they are not ratifying the club sale. 
 
 

Mate. You must be trolling with these comments (you’ve made a few, but I just grabbed this one). 
 
The information available to us points to the EFL being the one holding things up. 
 
You keep saying they haven’t added anything, or they are just following the rules. That they aren’t stopping the admins from accepting a bid. 
 
But those are precisely the things that have happened- as proven by the Admins  statement today (and honestly been backed up by the actions/words of Rooney and such).
 
The statement by the Admins. Rooneys comments about things almost finalized, and moving to re-sign and find new players.  Even ole Alan Nixon said the EFLs position appears to be extreme.
 
I don’t understand how you could think the EFL are just hands tied innocent (as your posts seem to suggest) in this situation.

Mate. You must be trolling with these comments (you’ve made a few, but I just grabbed this one). 
 
The information available to us points to the EFL being the one holding things up. 
 
You keep saying they haven’t added anything, or they are just following the rules. That they aren’t stopping the admins from accepting a bid. 
 
But those are precisely the things that have happened- as proven by the Admins  statement today (and honestly been backed up by the actions/words of Rooney and such).
 
The statement by the Admins. Rooneys comments about things almost finalized, and moving to re-sign and find new players.  Even ole Alan Nixon said the EFLs position appears to be extreme.
 
I don’t understand how you could think the EFL are just hands tied innocent (as your posts seem to suggest) in this situation.

Mate. You must be trolling with these comments (you’ve made a few, but I just grabbed this one). 
 
The information available to us points to the EFL being the one holding things up. 
 
You keep saying they haven’t added anything, or they are just following the rules. That they aren’t stopping the admins from accepting a bid. 
 
But those are precisely the things that have happened- as proven by the Admins  statement today (and honestly been backed up by the actions/words of Rooney and such).
 
The statement by the Admins. Rooneys comments about things almost finalized, and moving to re-sign and find new players.  Even ole Alan Nixon said the EFLs position appears to be extreme.
 
I don’t understand how you could think the EFL are just hands tied innocent (as your posts seem to suggest) in this situation.

As I understand it:
the path forward WAS having a bid come through that satisfied the administrators (which is on behalf of the creditors, and ultimately satisfy club asset purchase as well).
That path was found and met by the 3 offers the Admin claim to have. Now EFL are saying, no, we want you to settle these other claims first. To which the administrators are saying- you have no jurisdiction to make that demand.
So the EFL must explain (to all, including the creditors) why they are demanding something more then is needed to ratify the club sale. 
To note: it is my understanding the EFL have no remit to stop a sale because of an outstanding claim by another club. 

If I’m understanding the current situation:
1. We have 3 offers that have satisfied the administrators, 1 of which is seemingly the best (preferred bid). Meaning these offers cover the debts, and sale of club assets. 
 
2. Because of my first point, all that’s left in the process is for the EFL to sign off on the bids as meeting all necessary steps( which they seem to do from what I infer from the admins statement).
3. EFL say, we can’t sign off on those bids because we want you to settle these other claims first( which from what I’ve seen and has been suggested by the admins is outside of the EFLs remit.)
 
4. The admins respond by saying- hold up, you don’t have jurisdiction to NOT sign off on these bids for the club. Which is why the administrators are requesting immediate clarification on why the EFL think they can enforce such a demand. 

5. I would imagine the creditors are raising an eyebrow. If the EFL are indeed standing in the way of the creditors becoming whole with official bids, then the EFL should expect quite a bit of heat from the creditors to confirm why they won’t allow the sale to be ratified. 
 
Are those the basic plot points we have currently? 
 

I'd argue having 3 viable bids is a plan A, plan B and a plan C ......

As I understand it:
the path forward WAS having a bid come through that satisfied the administrators (which is on behalf of the creditors, and ultimately satisfy club asset purchase as well).
That path was found and met by the 3 offers the Admin claim to have. Now EFL are saying, no, we want you to settle these other claims first. To which the administrators are saying- you have no jurisdiction to make that demand.
So the EFL must explain (to all, including the creditors) why they are demanding something more then is needed to ratify the club sale. 
To note: it is my understanding the EFL have no remit to stop a sale because of an outstanding claim by another club. 

As I understand it:
the path forward WAS having a bid come through that satisfied the administrators (which is on behalf of the creditors, and ultimately satisfy club asset purchase as well).
That path was found and met by the 3 offers the Admin claim to have. Now EFL are saying, no, we want you to settle these other claims first. To which the administrators are saying- you have no jurisdiction to make that demand.
So the EFL must explain (to all, including the creditors) why they are demanding something more then is needed to ratify the club sale. 
To note: it is my understanding the EFL have no remit to stop a sale because of an outstanding claim by another club. 

It does actually if it's outside the list of creditors.  Any claim has to be legitimate and agreed by administrators and cleared by the court as a debt that needs including in possible CVA. Not this

But this is the point made many times in more than 1 thread, they DID have a route out until the EFL added the requirement for Boro and Wycombe to be dealt with,  and if you believe them as experts and lawyers, what  the EFL are now asking is effectively against the law/their rules, hence using the term statute in their statement.
I don't believe there is anything filed legally from either club, it is internal to the EFL yet they state that they have no involvement in these claims in one of their statements yesterday. We have been punished with points deductions, embargoes and financial restrictions on how the club can be run in line with the regulations, that's it, end of.
Can't wait for the poo storm from every other club with an axe to grind for wrongdoings in the past, and I would love Boro to get 6th place this season but fail ffp and see 7th place raise the same case against them!

As I understand it:
the path forward WAS having a bid come through that satisfied the administrators (which is on behalf of the creditors, and ultimately satisfy club asset purchase as well).
That path was found and met by the 3 offers the Admin claim to have. Now EFL are saying, no, we want you to settle these other claims first. To which the administrators are saying- you have no jurisdiction to make that demand.
So the EFL must explain (to all, including the creditors) why they are demanding something more then is needed to ratify the club sale. 
To note: it is my understanding the EFL have no remit to stop a sale because of an outstanding claim by another club. 

If I’m understanding the current situation:
1. We have 3 offers that have satisfied the administrators, 1 of which is seemingly the best (preferred bid). Meaning these offers cover the debts, and sale of club assets. 
 
2. Because of my first point, all that’s left in the process is for the EFL to sign off on the bids as meeting all necessary steps( which they seem to do from what I infer from the admins statement).
3. EFL say, we can’t sign off on those bids because we want you to settle these other claims first( which from what I’ve seen and has been suggested by the admins is outside of the EFLs remit.)
 
4. The admins respond by saying- hold up, you don’t have jurisdiction to NOT sign off on these bids for the club. Which is why the administrators are requesting immediate clarification on why the EFL think they can enforce such a demand. 

5. I would imagine the creditors are raising an eyebrow. If the EFL are indeed standing in the way of the creditors becoming whole with official bids, then the EFL should expect quite a bit of heat from the creditors to confirm why they won’t allow the sale to be ratified. 
 
Are those the basic plot points we have currently? 
 

I understand the anger, the supposition, and the what-ifs. This is a forum…forums are built on what-ifs. But I am seeing some grasp onto so called ‘details’ as truths. Which seems to be causing unnecessary disputes. 
 
In any negotiation, facts and figures change daily (if not hourly). So we can only really work with the latest data that’s been offered. 
 
The biggest piece being:
The administrators are (in the best way they can while staying with in the guidelines of an accredited legal entity) claiming they have bids for the club that satisfy the needs of the creditors and Club. and want the EFL to clarify why that isn’t good enough for the EFL. 
 
In my eyes- Todays statement from the administrators was a pretty massive shot across the bow. As I eluded in my previous post a couple pages back. After todays statement by the admin. The onus rests completely with the EFL to explain to everybody(including some pretty itchy creditors) why they are not ratifying the club sale. 
 
 

I understand the anger, the supposition, and the what-ifs. This is a forum…forums are built on what-ifs. But I am seeing some grasp onto so called ‘details’ as truths. Which seems to be causing unnecessary disputes. 
 
In any negotiation, facts and figures change daily (if not hourly). So we can only really work with the latest data that’s been offered. 
 
The biggest piece being:
The administrators are (in the best way they can while staying with in the guidelines of an accredited legal entity) claiming they have bids for the club that satisfy the needs of the creditors and Club. and want the EFL to clarify why that isn’t good enough for the EFL. 
 
In my eyes- Todays statement from the administrators was a pretty massive shot across the bow. As I eluded in my previous post a couple pages back. After todays statement by the admin. The onus rests completely with the EFL to explain to everybody(including some pretty itchy creditors) why they are not ratifying the club sale. 
 
 

If I’m understanding the current situation:
1. We have 3 offers that have satisfied the administrators, 1 of which is seemingly the best (preferred bid). Meaning these offers cover the debts, and sale of club assets. 
 
2. Because of my first point, all that’s left in the process is for the EFL to sign off on the bids as meeting all necessary steps( which they seem to do from what I infer from the admins statement).
3. EFL say, we can’t sign off on those bids because we want you to settle these other claims first( which from what I’ve seen and has been suggested by the admins is outside of the EFLs remit.)
 
4. The admins respond by saying- hold up, you don’t have jurisdiction to NOT sign off on these bids for the club. Which is why the administrators are requesting immediate clarification on why the EFL think they can enforce such a demand. 

5. I would imagine the creditors are raising an eyebrow. If the EFL are indeed standing in the way of the creditors becoming whole with official bids, then the EFL should expect quite a bit of heat from the creditors to confirm why they won’t allow the sale to be ratified. 
 
Are those the basic plot points we have currently? 
 

I understand the anger, the supposition, and the what-ifs. This is a forum…forums are built on what-ifs. But I am seeing some grasp onto so called ‘details’ as truths. Which seems to be causing unnecessary disputes. 
 
In any negotiation, facts and figures change daily (if not hourly). So we can only really work with the latest data that’s been offered. 
 
The biggest piece being:
The administrators are (in the best way they can while staying with in the guidelines of an accredited legal entity) claiming they have bids for the club that satisfy the needs of the creditors and Club. and want the EFL to clarify why that isn’t good enough for the EFL. 
 
In my eyes- Todays statement from the administrators was a pretty massive shot across the bow. As I eluded in my previous post a couple pages back. After todays statement by the admin. The onus rests completely with the EFL to explain to everybody(including some pretty itchy creditors) why they are not ratifying the club sale. 
 
 

If I’m understanding the current situation:
1. We have 3 offers that have satisfied the administrators, 1 of which is seemingly the best (preferred bid). Meaning these offers cover the debts, and sale of club assets. 
 
2. Because of my first point, all that’s left in the process is for the EFL to sign off on the bids as meeting all necessary steps( which they seem to do from what I infer from the admins statement).
3. EFL say, we can’t sign off on those bids because we want you to settle these other claims first( which from what I’ve seen and has been suggested by the admins is outside of the EFLs remit.)
 
4. The admins respond by saying- hold up, you don’t have jurisdiction to NOT sign off on these bids for the club. Which is why the administrators are requesting immediate clarification on why the EFL think they can enforce such a demand. 

5. I would imagine the creditors are raising an eyebrow. If the EFL are indeed standing in the way of the creditors becoming whole with official bids, then the EFL should expect quite a bit of heat from the creditors to confirm why they won’t allow the sale to be ratified. 
 
Are those the basic plot points we have currently? 
 

If I’m understanding the current situation:
1. We have 3 offers that have satisfied the administrators, 1 of which is seemingly the best (preferred bid). Meaning these offers cover the debts, and sale of club assets. 
 
2. Because of my first point, all that’s left in the process is for the EFL to sign off on the bids as meeting all necessary steps( which they seem to do from what I infer from the admins statement).
3. EFL say, we can’t sign off on those bids because we want you to settle these other claims first( which from what I’ve seen and has been suggested by the admins is outside of the EFLs remit.)
 
4. The admins respond by saying- hold up, you don’t have jurisdiction to NOT sign off on these bids for the club. Which is why the administrators are requesting immediate clarification on why the EFL think they can enforce such a demand. 

5. I would imagine the creditors are raising an eyebrow. If the EFL are indeed standing in the way of the creditors becoming whole with official bids, then the EFL should expect quite a bit of heat from the creditors to confirm why they won’t allow the sale to be ratified. 
 
Are those the basic plot points we have currently?