atherstoneram

32 minutes ago, Rich84 said:

Was just about to ask where @Owen87ITKis, we need an update, Sky sports news interrupted their headline running Djokovic news to state we in embargo again because of lack of funds.....

Right behind the administrators.... I'm struggling with that now, how can they give WR a positive vibe yesterday to us be back at square 1 today? 

Did they or was that Rooney's take on things?

33 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

But why would they want to do that? It would still mess up their fixtures, impact other clubs and have a serious impact on staff and players.

My guess is they want us to survive as a fee paying member (when we’ve got some money) but see us relegated.

But at this moment we don't have any or very little, if the administrators can't bring things to a satisfactory conclusion they will have no option but to liquidate the club.

30 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

The club is more attractive to bidders as a Championship club, (preferably without 21 points deducted, and preferably with players who are under contract on low wages being allowed to renew their contracts) being  more attractive if they keep their better players and are not forced to sell at fire sale prices, and more attractive if dodgy claims from other clubs are not elevated to "football creditor" status by the EFL.   

So yes, the EFL are stopping us from selling the club, as they have been doing for the last two years. 

No, the reason is we haven't been able to sell the club is because MM was asking too much and when that didn't happen we were in too much debt.

28 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

What exactly could they do if such assurances can’t be given?

Force the club into liquidation.

21 minutes ago, MK-Ram said:

Quantuma's reputation must be taking a serious hit here.

I also don't understand why there is a clear vendetta against the club - if we were fighting for promotion then I would understand, however we are merely fighting for breath at the moment.

Do you really think the administrators are not trying, if rescuing a business in administration was easy they wouldn't be charging as much, we don't know what is going on, it may even come to the point where nothing more can be done as various parties can't reach agreement, that is not the administrators fault.

24 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

I’m aware, sorry I should have been more specific in my wording, I’ll try again….

I don’t understand what the reasoning would be for cancelling his contract if it does in fact expire in 3 days anyway.  

Who has cancelled it, the club or Jagielka, if it's not being renewed there is probably another club wanting his services.

37 minutes ago, Carnero said:

That's a big assumption on your part.

The administrators job is to reduce the debt,not keep trading whilst insolvent, the transfer window is open so they have the opportunity to reduce the day to day running costs.

40 minutes ago, Topram said:

If it isn’t today which I don’t think it will be Rooney surely shouldn’t be saying these things? Gets everyone’s hopes up and expectations up for nothing  

 He is not going to openly say things are looking bleak is he, i  think he is just hoping as much as we are to keep the players and fans motivated.

37 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

There is a major problem in selling players and to me it’s a major one - a potential buyer is buying nothing but debt, if the players are sold there is nothing to buy because you don’t get a ground because it’s a separate purchase and another £20 million - yes you could sell a Lawrence as it wouldn’t make a massive difference to us in my opinion but we would only be getting £500,000 to a £1 million at best which changes little whilst if you sell the youngsters at would be bargain basement prices you are left with nothing.  You would get the £30 million paid to cover debt with no stadium no players, league one football guaranteed and the optimistic hope that about 15,000 supporters every two weeks would pay all the Bills which wouldn’t cover it, Game set and match.

That is why the administrators are having difficulty making the club an attractive proposition to buyers, to make the club attractive they have to reduce costs, as you say we have nothing to sell but players, i am sure the creditors are watching proceedings very closely at present.

51 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

Appleby used the phrase “good to go” if he was the PB then surely that would mean immediate funds to rest of season?

He may well have used the phrase "good to go" but that maybe only from his viewpoint, he didn't say the administrators were "good to go"

2 hours ago, jimtastic56 said:

We are in a no win situation. If we don’t sell one player , we have to take out another soft loan at the end of the month to pay the wages. Remember the coaching staff alone is 1/2 a million a month.

The administrators won't allow themselves to be put in that situation, they need to get the club on an even financial footing in order to be sold. We are now in the transfer window and taking out another soft loan is not an option, it will be players sold to get the wages/debt down.

10 hours ago, Ellafella said:

But they’re delaying procedures when we haven’t got time on our hands. Unnecessarily…because a preferred bidder surely wouldn’t want the Club to liquidate when they’re trying to buy it in its current state. 

All the preferred bidder is,from the administrators point of view, the bidder that best satisfies the creditors and the club going forward. At this moment in time we are, i believe, still having to take out loans to cover day to day running costs so the EFL will have the last call on  new (free/loan) signings. The preferred bidder then has to satisfy and agree a plan with the EFL so it could be weeks/months that the preferred bidder becomes the owner,until that time the administrators are still in charge so it is understandable that the EFL are requesting the administrators show that we can provide funds until the end of the season or the new owner takes over. The preferred bidder could still withdraw their offer if they so wish or cannot come to an agreement with the EFL.

4 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Or, he is saying that they accepted to avoid being worse off. (in this case, a heftier points deduction).

 

There are a million examples of two parties agreeing to an "out of court settlement", and yet neither are in a position to lay claim to being victorious, and neither get labelled as being "guilty" and/or "liable".

Would you accept 9 points on your driving licence just to get it over with as @PistoldPetesaid or if you believed you were innocent of the charges would you fight it, if you accept the 9 points then you are admitting guilt.

Just now, PistoldPete said:

You can but most people don't. Too much effort and you could end up being worse off.

So you are saying it was too much effort for the club to challenge the fine and points deduction even though you think we were innocent

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

People accept Fixed penalty fines all of the time.  

We are not on about fixed penalty fines but you can still contest those if you are innocent or believe you are innocent.

20 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

1) The first was highly dubious, and is not a precedent. Boro would have to prove we breached any rule on the depreciation issue. The points deduction depended on the  first alleged breach and was only an agreed penalty to try and get the thing over with. 

 How would Boro' have to prove we breached any rule,we accepted a £100K fine and Nine point deduction, by that action we admitted to the breaches. Anybody who believed they were 100% innocent of the charges would not just accept it to try and get things over with,they would fight it.

 Would you accept an agreed penalty of a fine or driving ban if you knew you were innocent just to get it over with, i very much doubt it.

 

1 minute ago, Sparkle said:

You should know based on most of your comments 

Assets are what people own,if you think otherwise carry on.

1 minute ago, plymouthram said:

A regular buyer is an investor in the football club, therefor a fan BUYING, tickets, club shop items, programs etc are an asset. No fans, no buyer, no asset from approximately 40,000+ fans. Other assests are the infrastructure of the club also, i.e. Stadium, training/accademy ground, saleable players etc

What other assets, the club don't own the stadium or training ground, fans are not classed as assets,the club don't own any fans.

5 hours ago, I know nuffin said:

So it is better for the creditors if the club is sold rather than having a fire sale. The fans are part of the going forward so to maximise what the creditors get makes the fans quite important

The club will only go forward if it's viable,unfortunately fans are not an asset.

1 hour ago, NottsRam said:

I disagree in as much as,  the best outcome for creditors is through business rescue, in our case business rescue means sale of the business to a purchaser who meets the requirements and will give the creditors the best outcome.  

But that's not the way it works,administrators are brought in as the club cannot meet it's liabilities, until a sale can be considered the administrators have to get the clubs finances in order including foremost their duty to creditors. The only assets the club has is the players and many are out of contract in the summer,some may leave in this window,some may sign pre contract agreements to join other clubs in the summer,these will no longer be counted as assets so further reducing the value. If proposed buyers submit a bid on that valuation i doubt very much the administrators would accept the bid. The buyers have to provide expected financial incoming/outgoings going forward. The best outcome for fans is a business rescue but that may not be the case for creditors.

2 hours ago, NottsRam said:

The first role of administrators is to attempt business rescue, only if this fails do they move to liquidation process at which point they must secure maximum returns for creditors.  We are very much at the business rescue stage and hence customers (in this case fans) are pivotal to any success.  Engaging with the supporters groups is seen as a very important role to Quantuma (so i have been told).

 The First role of administrators is to sort out an an outcome for the creditors if possible, not attempt a business rescue, If after sorting that out and they can get the club on a viable financial setting then they will try to sell the club, if the debts are too high to be serviced then they will place the club in liquidation. All they are concerned about are financial matters. If potential buyers submit bids which the administrators see as not meeting their requirements then they will be rejected.

20 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

No HMRC do not make laws. If they did they would have been preferred creditors long before now. The admin team has to act in the interests of  all creditors not just HMRC. If HMRC act against the interests of other creditors or even against their own interest, then the admin team will just have to navigate around that.  

The HMRC won't act against the interest of other creditors or their own interest as for being preferred creditors that is why a change in the law came about. Yes the administrators will have to navigate around that but that may not be viable financially.

1 hour ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

They certainly had varying degrees of payments based on the creditors reports I worked with albeit 10 years ago.  If we get an acceptable bid for any player in order to reduce liability they will go, if an entity has an asset that can reduce liability and allow payment to be reduced prior to plan being agreed, that's it.  Even then, any plan will be under 3 monthly review to see if payments can be increased and this will be a caveat of any plan with HMRC debt of this size.

 

When i said the administrators don't have to sell to anyone i was referring to the club not players.

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

There are rules made up by HMRC and there is the law. They are not the same. 

Mmmm lets see HMRC a government department,who makes the laws?.

Just now, PistoldPete said:

HMRC don't make the rules on insolvency.

I suggest you read up regarding HMRC rules when HMRC are involved in the business in administration